prowler_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that credentials must be configured, that scans take 5-30 minutes, and that it returns a summary of findings. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any potential side effects, or behavior on failure. These are notable gaps for an audit tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a summary sentence, a brief explanation of what Prowler does, a clear list of parameters, a returns note, and a note on requirements. Every sentence adds relevant information without redundancies.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, required credentials, parameter semantics, expected output, and runtime. It lacks details on failure modes or specific formatting of the returned summary, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need for elaborate return documentation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 description includes an Args section that explains the semantics of all six parameters, filling the gap left by the input schema's 0% description coverage. It clarifies that profile is for AWS, project for GCP, subscription for Azure, report_dir for report output, and timeout for overriding duration. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: 'Perform a cloud security audit using Prowler' and elaborates on what Prowler does (checks cloud configurations against compliance frameworks). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scoutsuite_scan or checkov_scan, which also perform cloud security audits.

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 provides context about prerequisites (credentials) and duration (long-running) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or when this tool is the preferred choice among siblings.

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