AWS MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation (List) but omits critical AWS-specific behaviors such as pagination semantics, whether results are filtered by permissions, or what the return structure contains (JSON array, object, etc.).

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 no wasted words. However, it may be overly terse for a tool lacking an output schema, as it provides no indication of what the caller receives in return.

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?

For a simple listing operation with complete input schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the absence of an output schema, it should describe the return value (e.g., group ARNs, names, tags) and ideally mention that this queries the AWS Resource Groups service specifically.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, documenting profile, region, and max_results. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema sufficiently defines the inputs.

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), resource (Resource Groups), and scope (in the account). However, it lacks differentiation from other 'list' tools on this server (e.g., aws_cognito_list_groups, aws_ecs_list_clusters) and doesn't clarify that these are AWS Resource Groups service groups rather than IAM or other group types.

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. While there are no other Resource Group-specific siblings, it doesn't indicate whether this requires specific permissions, how it compares to aws_tagging_get_resources, or when pagination (via max_results) is necessary.

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