list_slos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value by disclosing the required scope (slo.read) and what the payload contains (status and error budget). It omits pagination behavior, which matters for a listing tool with next_page_key, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and the returned content. The '(GET /api/v2/slo)' fragment is mildly redundant but arguably useful for agents mapping to the underlying API.

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 6-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content and auth scope but leaves pagination, the meaning of 'status' (current vs evaluated over a window), and the evaluate/to_time interaction unexplained. Adequate but with 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 description mentions no parameters at all, while schema coverage is only 67% — evaluate has no description in the schema, and page_size, next_page_key and slo_selector syntax are only partly documented there. With a meaningful share of parameters undocumented, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list SLOs) plus what each entry carries (status and error budget), which an agent can distinguish from the singular sibling get_slo. It does not explicitly name get_slo as the single-SLO alternative, but the list/get split is implied by the verb.

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?

'Needs slo.read' is a concrete prerequisite that tells the agent whether it can call the tool at all. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer list_slos over get_slo or how this relates to SLO-related siblings; usage is only implied.

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