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. It successfully discloses what data is returned (names/metadata) and explicitly what is excluded (values), which is critical for a secrets management tool. However, it omits pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication 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?

Extremely concise at 11 words total. Every element earns its place: the parenthetical '(names and metadata, not values)' is critical behavioral information despite the brevity. Front-loaded with the action verb and zero wasted words.

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 straightforward nature of this listing tool and comprehensive input schema coverage, the description is adequately complete. It clarifies the return data semantically (names/metadata vs values), though it could briefly mention the output structure format.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear documentation for all four parameters (profile, region, max_results, filters) and includes helpful examples for the filters parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 provides a specific verb ('List'), clear resource ('secrets in AWS Secrets Manager'), and crucial scope clarification ('names and metadata, not values') that distinguishes this from the sibling tool `aws_secretsmanager_get_secret_value`.

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 parenthetical '(not values)' implies this should not be used for retrieving secret values, suggesting an alternative exists. However, it does not explicitly name the correct alternative tool (`get_secret_value`) or provide explicit when/when-not guidance.

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