ops_sla_followup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully indicates the dry-run capability, which is crucial for a write operation. However, it omits details about return values, error handling, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence of 12 words that front-loads the action verb and packs in the core functionality and a key feature (dry-run). There is no wasted language.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently minimal. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation by explaining key filtering logic or expected outputs, leaving the agent under-equipped to invoke the tool 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its 9 parameters. While the description implicitly references 'channels' and explicitly mentions 'dry-run,' it fails to document critical parameters like sla_minutes, lookback_hours, or max_threads_per_channel, leaving the majority of the interface 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 description clearly states the action ('Post reminder replies'), target ('SLA-breached threads'), and scope ('across channels'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ops_sla_breach_scan (identification vs. action) and ops_broadcast_message (broadcast vs. thread reply). However, it could clarify what constitutes an SLA breach.

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 mentions 'supports dry-run,' weakly implying a testing workflow, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ops_sla_breach_scan or ops_unanswered_threads. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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