sla_risk_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and clarifies that the tool returns counts of breached vs. approaching tickets, making side effects and the aggregate nature clear. It does not specify the exact return format, but that is a minor gap for a zero-parameter summary tool.

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 sentences contain the full purpose, the metric definitions, and the read-only safety signal with no filler. The core action is front-loaded before the detailed threshold explanation.

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 no-argument tool with no output schema, the description fully equips an agent to invoke it correctly: it defines scope ('open queue'), the categories, the SLA threshold, and safety. 'How many tickets' also communicates that the result is a summary rather than a ticket list.

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, so the empty input schema is already complete. The description adds meaningful context about what the summary covers, meeting the baseline for no-parameter tools without needing further elaboration.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Summarize SLA risk across the open queue.' It also defines the two key categories (already breached vs. approaching at over 75% of the SLA window elapsed), which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling list-focused tools like sla_breaches or list_open_tickets.

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 implies when to use the tool: when an aggregate SLA risk view over the open queue is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names.

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