get_tagging_compliance

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 conveys a read-only intent through 'Checks' and explains the core action (identifying non-compliant resources). However, it omits details about the output format, whether the check covers all resource types by default, and any caveats about tag definitions or permissions.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the action and resource scope. The first sentence defines the purpose; the second gives usage guidance. No irrelevant content or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only query tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. The implied output (list of non-compliant resources) is clear enough, though an explicit statement of return format would make it fully complete.

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%, with both parameters ('resource_type' and 'show_violations_only') having clear descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description does not add parameter-level details, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 the specific verb 'Checks' with a clear resource scope: 'AWS resource tagging compliance.' It also defines the concrete outcome: 'identifying resources missing required tags like Environment, Owner, CostCenter, and Project.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on cost, idle resources, or anomalies.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when asked about cost allocation, untagged resources, or tagging policies.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tool set (cost/anomaly/idle tools) makes those cases implicitly distinct.

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