error_budget_status

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

The description discloses a read-only operation ('View') with no destructive effects. However, with no annotations provided, more behavioral details (e.g., required permissions, side effects, or rate limits) would improve transparency. The current description is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'View current SRE error budget status for a team.' Every word is necessary, and it is immediately clear what the tool does. Excellent conciseness.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It defines the resource and scope. However, it could briefly mention what the status includes (e.g., remaining budget, burn rate) to enhance completeness, though the output schema likely covers this.

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 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'team_id', which is already well-documented in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 purpose: 'View current SRE error budget status for a team.' It uses a specific verb ('View'), identifies the resource ('SRE error budget status'), and specifies scope ('for a team'). This distinguishes it from sibling 'error_budget_update' which is for updating.

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 for viewing error budget status but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'error_budget_update' for changes). No when-not-to-use or alternative naming is included.

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