AWS MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Get' implies read-only operation, and 'full configuration including all rules' adds context about data completeness. However, lacks disclosure of error behavior (e.g., resource not found), rate limits, or specific AWS permissions required.

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?

Single 11-word sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with action verb and specific resource identifier. Every word earns its place.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description partially compensates by mentioning 'full configuration including all rules' to indicate output richness. However, missing prerequisite guidance (Web ACL ID source) and error case documentation for a 5-parameter AWS API call.

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%, so baseline score applies. The description does not add parameter-specific context (e.g., that 'scope' determines whether to look in REGIONAL or CLOUDFRONT, or that 'id' and 'name' are both required identifiers).

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?

States specific verb 'Get' and resource 'WAF v2 Web ACL' with scope 'full configuration including all rules'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'aws_wafv2_get_web_acl_for_resource' which also retrieves a Web ACL but by resource association rather than by name/ID.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aws_wafv2_get_web_acl_for_resource' or the prerequisite of needing the Web ACL ID (typically obtained from 'aws_wafv2_list_web_acls'). No mention of error conditions or required IAM permissions.

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