cloudwatch_top_ips

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that it parses structured logs (WAF/ALB) and reports counts, but does not mention required permissions, cost implications, or behavior with unstructured logs. Some gaps remain.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose (verb+resource), second adds detail and usage hint. No fluff, 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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the general use case but lacks return format details, error handling, or guidance on parameter limits (e.g., max_events cap). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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% (baseline 3). The description adds context for action_filter (ALLOW/BLOCK) and the overall purpose, but does not elaborate on parameters beyond schema descriptions.

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 ranks top client IPs, parses WAF/ALB structured logs, and reports per-IP counts. It distinguishes from siblings like cloudwatch_get_log_events and block_ip by specifying the analytical use case.

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 indicates when to use (finding abusive IPs before banning) and implies context by mentioning WAF/ALB logs, but it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide 'when not to use' guidance.

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