scan_unattached_ebs

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' implies a read-only scan with no modification, but the description never explicitly states that it does not modify resources, what permissions are needed, or what form the results take. It discloses the filtering behavior but leaves the safety profile implicit.

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 eight-word sentence with no filler. The action and object are front-loaded, and every word adds meaning. For a tool with one parameter, this is appropriately sized.

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 and invocable: one required parameter, fully documented in the schema. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not mention return format, read-only guarantee, or pagination. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete for setting expectations after the call.

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 100%: the only parameter, region, is already documented with type and an example ('eu-west-1'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema fully covers the single parameter, so the baseline of 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?

Description begins with a specific verb ('Find') and names the exact resource ('EBS volumes') plus the filtering criterion ('not attached to any instance'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like scan_stopped_ec2 and scan_s3_public_access, which target different 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 is implied: identify orphaned EBS volumes, likely for cleanup or cost analysis. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus sibling scan tools, and no exclusions such as 'does not check volumes attached to stopped instances'. The sibling list provides context, but the description itself doesn't route the agent.

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