ops_sla_breach_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only discloses the filtering logic (SLA threshold + no external replies). It fails to clarify if this is read-only, whether it modifies thread state, rate limits, or what the return format contains (especially critical given no output schema exists).

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?

Extremely efficient single sentence of 12 words with zero redundancy. Information is front-loaded with the action verb, making it immediately scannable.

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?

Inadequate for a 6-parameter operational tool with complex logic (SLA calculation, threading, external vs internal reply detection). Lacks explanation of pagination behavior (max_threads), authentication override purpose, or output structure. Should specify what constitutes an 'external' reply and how SLA breaches are calculated.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It conceptually maps to 'channels' and 'sla_minutes' via 'multiple channels' and 'SLA threshold', but completely ignores 'lookback_hours', 'max_threads_per_channel', 'include_bot_replies', and 'token_override', leaving 4 of 6 parameters semantically undocumented.

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 verb (scan), target resource (channels/threads), and specific filtering criteria (exceed SLA threshold, without external replies). However, it loses a point for ambiguous terminology ('external replies' lacks context) and fails to explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'ops_sla_followup'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus siblings like 'ops_unanswered_threads' or 'ops_sla_followup', nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., required channel name format) or when-not-to-use conditions. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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