get_request_sla

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It specifies return values (remaining time, breach status, goal durations) and pagination, but does not explicitly state read-only nature or permissions required. The description is moderately transparent but lacks explicit safety or side-effect statements.

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 consists of three sentences plus a bullet list of parameter descriptions. It is structured, front-loaded with the purpose, and each part adds value. No unnecessary words.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, but it does summarize them. It covers all parameters and explains pagination. The tool is simple, and the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning for all three parameters: issue_id_or_key with example format, start as pagination offset, and limit with default. This goes beyond the schema's titles and types, compensating for the lack of 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 gets SLA metrics for a customer request, specifying it returns remaining time, breach status, and goal durations. The use of 'Get' and resource 'SLA metrics' is specific, and it is differentiated from sibling 'get_request_sla_by_id' by the parameter issue_id_or_key.

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 when SLA metrics for a request are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or any prerequisites. No guidance on when not to use is given.

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