sonar_remedy_slice

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden, but it does not explain side effects, persistence guarantees, whether 'execute' acts as a dry-run flag, idempotency, or required state handling. 'Create' implies a mutation, but that is the only behavioral signal.

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 clean sentence with no redundancy, but it is under-specified for a tool with five parameters and no annotations. This brevity reads as under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Critical knowledge about parameter meanings, execution behavior, and when to use the tool is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'export.' Required parameters like 'state' and optional ones like 'repo,' 'project,' and 'execute' are completely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 states a clear action and object: 'Create a durable queue from an export.' This conveys the core purpose and distinguishes it from run/schedule/status siblings, though terms like 'durable queue' and 'slice' remain somewhat unclear.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like sonar_remedy_run or sonar_remedy_schedule. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name and a one-line description.

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