AWS MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it fails to mention whether this is read-only, if results are paginated, rate limiting considerations, or what data structure is returned. It does not disclose if the key_id filter performs exact or partial matching.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely brief at three words, containing no redundancy or filler. While efficient, this brevity constitutes under-specification rather than optimal conciseness, as no additional context is provided beyond the tool name itself.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should explain the return format and alias structure. It currently provides no information about what fields are returned (alias ARN, alias name, target key ID) or how to handle large result sets.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema adequately documents all three parameters (profile, region, key_id). The description adds no additional parameter context, semantics, or usage examples, warranting the baseline score of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the basic action ('List') and resource ('KMS key aliases'), but offers no scope constraints, filtering behavior details, or distinction from sibling tools like aws_kms_list_keys or aws_kms_describe_key. It identifies the operation without explaining the KMS alias concept or when to prefer this over listing raw keys.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., aws_kms_list_keys), nor does it mention prerequisites such as AWS credentials or required IAM permissions for KMS. There are no exclusions or conditional usage notes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.