AWS MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies read-only operation, the description does not confirm this is safe/non-destructive, does not explain pagination behavior (despite the max_results parameter), and does not describe the return format or Lake Formation-specific authorization requirements.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. However, given the tool's complexity (6 parameters including nested objects and enums), it may be too terse to adequately guide agent behavior without additional context from the schema.

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 is minimally viable. It identifies the core operation but omits Lake Formation-specific context (e.g., what permissions entail, catalog scope) and behavioral details that would help the agent handle the response or understand filtering precedence.

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 schema fully documents individual parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value by grouping 'principal' and 'resource' as the two filtering approaches, but does not elaborate on valid parameter combinations, the nested structure of the principal object, or the enum values for resource_type.

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 clearly states the verb (List) and resource (Lake Formation permissions) and identifies the two primary filtering dimensions (principal or resource). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `aws_lakeformation_list_resources` or `aws_lakeformation_get_data_lake_settings`, though the scope is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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, nor does it explain whether principal and resource filters can be combined or are mutually exclusive. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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