aws_list_amis

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 sorting order, filtering behavior (case-sensitive glob), default ownership, and API consumption bounding. Missing auth requirements but this is common for AWS tools.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key information, zero waste. Every sentence provides value: first covers purpose and key features, second covers limits and defaults.

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 (4 params, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's behavior and constraints. Could mention potential errors or pagination, but is adequate for the agent.

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%, and the description adds operational context beyond the schema: sorting order, filtering case-sensitivity, default owners, and max_results cap. This provides meaningful additional information.

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 action (list AMIs), resource (AMIs), scope (region), sorting (newest-first), filtering (partial name match), and default ownership. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like aws_list_instance_types.

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 when to use the tool (when listing AMIs) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions defaults and constraints but not exclusions.

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