cloudtrail_lookup_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'management events' and optional filters but does not disclose limitations (e.g., event retention period, pagination, cost implications, or what happens if region is empty). The schema provides some details (default region behavior) but the description adds little beyond the basic action.

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 two sentences long, with the main action and key filters in the first sentence. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy. It is efficient and front-loaded.

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 has 6 optional parameters and no output schema. The description only hints at return fields (who changed what, source IP) but does not fully explain the return format, event structure, or how results are ordered. Without annotations, more detail is needed about behavioral aspects like default region handling and result limits.

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 schema_description_coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists three filters (event_name, username, resource_type) which correspond to schema parameters, but adds no semantic value beyond the schema (e.g., does not explain how hours_back interacts with default or max_results limits). No extra context is provided.

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 verb 'look up' and the specific resource 'AWS CloudTrail management events'. It lists key optional filters (event name, username, resource type) and describes the tool's purpose (auditing who changed what and from which source IP). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aws_call or aws_run_instances which focus on different AWS services or 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 usage context by stating it is 'useful for auditing who changed what', implying investigation scenarios. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other audit tools like cloudwatch_get_log_events or aws_call). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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