AWS MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the critical safety trait that values are not retrieved—essential for a secrets tool. Missing details on read-only nature, audit logging behavior, and side effects, but covers the most important behavioral constraint.

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?

Perfectly sized single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded action ('Get metadata'), parenthetical specificity, and trailing exclusion clause ('without retrieving the value'). Every clause earns its place in distinguishing this tool's unique value proposition.

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?

Adequate for basic operation understanding, but leaves gap regarding the five optional parameters (profile, region, sensitive_access_*). Given the complexity of sensitive access controls and their apparent mismatch with a metadata-only operation, description should address why these parameters exist or when they are needed.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds significant semantic value by grouping output metadata types (rotation, replication, tags), helping the agent understand what 'describe' encompasses beyond the input schema. Does not explain the sensitive_access_* parameters, which appear mismatched with the 'no value retrieval' claim.

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?

Excellent specificity: 'Get metadata' (verb) + 'secret' (resource) + explicit examples (rotation, replication, tags). Critically distinguishes from sibling aws_secretsmanager_get_secret_value by stating 'without retrieving the value', clarifying scope boundaries precisely.

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?

Provides clear implicit guidance by stating the negative capability ('without retrieving the value'), signaling when to use this (metadata only) vs when to avoid. However, does not explicitly name the sibling alternative (aws_secretsmanager_get_secret_value) for value retrieval, which would strengthen selection confidence.

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