scan_iam

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'find' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that the tool makes no changes, what AWS permissions are required, whether it can return partial results, or any rate-limit implications. For a scanner, this lack of explicit behavioral disclosure is a significant gap.

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 focused sentence, front-loaded with the main action ('Find IAM issues') and immediately followed by concrete examples. There is no fluff, repetition, or irrelevant detail; it earns its place.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and the description lists the kinds of findings, which is helpful. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of findings, severity levels, or a summary). An agent knows what it scans but not what it will receive, leaving a moderate completeness gap.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'region' parameter, and the schema already explains it ('AWS region to scan, e.g. eu-west-1'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the schema fully carries that burden, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('IAM issues'), then enumerates concrete examples (root access keys, missing MFA, stale access keys). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling scan tools like scan_stopped_ec2 and scan_s3_public_access, which target other AWS resources.

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?

Usage context is implied by the scan_* sibling family and the description's focus on IAM-specific checks, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the IAM scanner rather than being told.

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