can_delete_slos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a read-only check ('Check if...'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'safely' entails beyond the dashboard example. The description adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clarifying example. Every word adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. However, for a tool that checks deletion safety, more context on what 'safely' means (e.g., dependencies, impacts) or the return format would enhance completeness. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate here. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info.

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 purpose: 'Check if an SLO can be safely deleted.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('SLO'), and the example adds context about dashboard disruption. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'can_delete_monitors' or 'delete_slo', which are related but distinct.

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 usage through the example ('assure an SLO can be deleted without disrupting a dashboard'), suggesting it should be used before deletion to verify safety. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_slo' or provide clear prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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