get_slo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a single evaluated record (percentage, error budget, burn rate) is returned, which is useful context, but it is silent on how the from_time/to_time window affects the evaluation or what happens when they are empty.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, so nothing is wasted, but it is also unstructured and too terse to front-load any operational guidance beyond the returned fields.

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?

No output schema exists and three parameters are undocumented, so the description must explain the evaluation window and default behavior and does not. For a tool whose entire value is a time-scoped evaluation, leaving the time semantics unaddressed is a material gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, yet it says nothing about slo_id, to_time, or from_time. The empty-string defaults and the fact that the time fields presumably bound the evaluation window are left entirely unexplained.

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 phrase names the resource (one SLO) and the payload (evaluated percentage, error budget, burn rate), which is more concrete than the sibling list_slos, but it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and never explicitly contrasts itself with the listing tool. An agent can infer retrieval, but the definition does not state the action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_slos or the problem/metric tools. The only implicit signal is 'One SLO' versus a list, and nothing says what prerequisites exist or when this is the wrong tool.

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