aws_ec2

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It lists actions but doesn't describe permissions needed, cost implications, destructive nature of operations like terminate, or response formats. For a tool with 13 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise with a single, efficient sentence that lists all key actions. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every element (manage, AWS EC2 instances, action list) earns its place 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 (13 parameters, multiple actions including destructive ones like terminate, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like authentication requirements, error handling, or what information is returned. For a multi-action cloud management tool, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective use.

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%, meaning none of the 13 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about parameters beyond implying some actions (like create) might use parameters like imageId or instanceType. It doesn't explain what parameters are needed for which actions, their formats, or constraints, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 as managing AWS EC2 instances with specific verbs (list, create, start, stop, terminate). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on EC2 instances rather than other AWS services like S3 or Lambda, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The description goes beyond tautology by specifying the resource (AWS EC2 instances) and actions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for choosing between actions, or comparisons with sibling tools like aws_cloudformation or terraform that might also manage infrastructure. Usage is implied through the listed actions but not explicitly defined.

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