View SLA breach history — which SLAs were breached, by which agents, actual vs threshold values, and resolution status. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Days to look back (default 30) | |
| agent_name | No | Filter by agent name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the authentication requirement and specifies the kind of data returned (actual vs threshold values, resolution status), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('View SLA breach history') and packs essential details (what data is shown, authentication) without any wasted words. It is concise and immediately informative.
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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficiently complete for this simple read-only tool. It covers purpose, key data fields, and authentication. It does not mention pagination or empty-result behavior, but these are less critical given the simple filtering use case and existing schema.
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 provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (days and agent_name), so the description does not need to add much. It implicitly aligns with the agent_name filter by mentioning 'by which agents', but it does not provide additional syntax, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema already states. 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('View SLA breach history') and details the included content (breached SLAs, agents, actual vs threshold values, resolution status). It is distinct from sibling tools like thinkneo_sla_status or thinkneo_sla_dashboard, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.
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 you need breach history) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No direct guidance on preferring this tool over thinkneo_sla_status or thinkneo_a2a_audit is provided, so the usage context is clear but not fully spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as the multiple safety-check tools (thinkneo_check, thinkneo_detect_injection, thinkneo_evaluate_guardrail) and the many cost/reporting tools (thinkneo_agent_roi, thinkneo_decision_cost, thinkneo_business_impact). An agent would struggle to reliably pick the correct tool for a given intent. The boundaries between dashboard, audit, and reporting tools are particularly fuzzy.
All tools share the thinkneo_ prefix, but the remaining naming is inconsistent: some follow verb_noun (check_spend, list_alerts), some use noun_verb (compliance_generate, alert_rule_create), and others are bare nouns (business_impact, cache_status). This mix makes it hard to predict tool names based on action and object.
With 68 tools, this is an extremely large surface area, far beyond the typical 3-15 well-scoped set and even beyond the 25+ heavy threshold. Even for a comprehensive enterprise platform, the sheer number overwhelms an agent's ability to choose effectively. It feels like a kitchen-sink approach rather than a curated toolkit.
The toolset covers a wide range of governance, observability, and cost-management features, but there are notable lifecycle gaps: SLAs can be defined but not updated or deleted, alert rules lack an update operation, and registry entries have no remove/unpublish. Also, policy management is limited to checking, with no create/update tool. The memory tools feel out of place and lack a delete operation.
