get_task_sla

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what data is returned (percent complete, breach status, stage, planned end) and the active_only default behavior is documented in the schema. It doesn't disclose pagination, ordering, or what happens when no SLA exists, but the read-only annotation lowers the burden.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the resource and the key returned fields. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only, open-world tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what it returns and the schema covers the parameters. The only minor gap is not stating what happens when no SLA instances exist or how many are returned, but that is a small omission given the annotations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a small amount of context by mentioning 'live SLA instances' and the fields returned, but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') with a clear resource ('live SLA instances (task_sla)') and lists the key data returned (percent complete, breach status, stage, planned end). It distinguishes itself from sibling SLA tools like get_sla_details, list_active_slas, and get_csm_case_sla by focusing on task-level SLA instances with live status fields.

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 usage context: it is for retrieving SLA instances for a task, and the parameter descriptions clarify that you can use either a task sys_id or task number. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over get_sla_details or list_active_slas, but the task-scoped focus is clear enough to guide selection.

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