Get slice warnings

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses a significant API limitation: the current fork build may report valid with an empty warnings list even when the GUI shows a plate-boundary toast, explaining the fork must populate the plater warning list. This is rich behavioral transparency about potential false negatives.

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 opening sentence is a clear, front-loaded purpose statement. The NOTE adds a necessary caveat but is slightly verbose/run-on; could be tightened while preserving the important behavioral limitation.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (warnings/errors plus validity), why to use it, and a critical edge-case limitation. The caveat about fork behavior makes it a complete, self-contained reference.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty; the description appropriately avoids adding parameter details. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools applies, since there is nothing to explain.

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 returns warnings/errors and validity from the last/current slice, positioning it as the fast 'did anything go wrong' check. This distinguishes it from sibling status/breakdown tools by focusing exclusively on warnings/errors and the fix-cleared confirmation.

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?

It explicitly frames usage as the fast health check and the way to confirm a fix cleared, giving clear context for when to call. It lacks explicit references to alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context strongly implies selecting this over heavier status/breakdown endpoints.

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