Amazon Bedrock Knowledge Base 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 discloses that the tool retrieves status, progress, statistics, and error information, and mentions a ValueError for empty IDs, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects, leaving gaps for a mutation-free but potentially sensitive operation.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises) and uses bullet points for returns, making it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized, though the Japanese text might be slightly verbose; every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (3 required parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, return values (including status enums and statistics), and error conditions. The output schema reduces the need to detail returns, but more behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, auth) would enhance completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., knowledge_base_id as Knowledge Base ID, ingestion_job_id from start_ingestion_job) and includes a 'Raises' section for error conditions, which goes beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail parameter formats or constraints beyond IDs being non-empty.

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's purpose: '取り込みジョブのステータスと詳細情報を取得します' (Get ingestion job status and detailed information). It specifies the verb '取得します' (get) and resource '取り込みジョブ' (ingestion job), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_ingestion_job' beyond mentioning it as the source for the job 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?

The description implies usage by referencing 'start_ingestion_job' for obtaining the ingestion_job_id, suggesting it should be used after starting a job. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., monitoring vs. initiating jobs) or any exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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