get_idle_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Identifies' implies a read-only analysis with no side effects, and the description adds useful context about the resource types covered. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or disclose any limitations, auth requirements, or return behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 list-style tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states scope, resource types, and usage context. The only gap is no explicit mention of return format or read-only safety, but the schema covers the parameters adequately.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema for min_idle_days or resource_type, nor does it clarify their usage or relationships.

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 uses a specific verb ('Identifies') and clearly names the resource scope ('idle or underutilized AWS resources including EC2 instances, RDS databases, and unattached EBS volumes'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly stating 'AWS', unlike get_gcp_idle_resources and get_azure_idle_resources.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when asked about waste, unused resources, or easy cost savings.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives like detect_cost_anomalies or get_cost_summary, so it falls short of a 5.

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