aws_org_connectors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'list and health status' but does not describe return details, pagination, or potential rate limiting. This is acceptable for a simple list tool but leaves some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 a single concise sentence followed by a 'USE WHEN' list, with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core purpose and provides immediately useful trigger phrases.

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?

The presence of an output schema and fully described parameters means the description only needs to convey purpose and usage context, which it does effectively. The sibling tool list adds context, and the tool is simple enough that no more behavioral detail is required.

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 fully documents both parameters with descriptions: 'limit' (max connectors, default 50) and 'detail' (summary/standard/detailed). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it relies on the schema's 100% coverage.

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 clearly states the tool 'list and health status for multi-account AWS setups,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cache_status or investigate by focusing on AWS Organization connectors.

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?

A 'USE WHEN' section provides explicit trigger phrases like 'show AWS org connectors' and 'AWS Organizations status', giving clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list and distinct purpose make the usage context clear.

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