list_breached_slas

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 context about the scope ('within a window' and 'task_sla') but does not explain the meaning of 'at risk' or how the window is defined, nor the interaction between parameters like breached and min_percentage. It adds some value beyond annotations but leaves behavioral details (e.g., default breached=true) to the schema.

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. It front-loads the verb and resource, includes a clarifying parenthetical, and contains no filler. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite the 100% schema coverage, the description is incomplete for a tool with four optional parameters and no output schema. It does not explain the default behavior (breached defaults to true), the relationship between breached and min_percentage, or how sla_table filtering works. The phrase 'within a window' is vague and not tied to any parameter. An agent may not fully understand how to get at-risk SLAs without reading the schema carefully.

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 each parameter is documented in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it mentions 'within a window' but does not map to any specific parameter or clarify defaults. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 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 clearly states a specific verb (List), a resource (SLA instances), and the scope (breached or at risk). It also names the underlying table (task_sla), which distinguishes it from related tools like list_sla_definitions (which list definitions) and get_task_sla (which fetches a single SLA). This is a precise, differentiated purpose.

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 provides clear context about what the tool returns, so an agent can infer when to use it (e.g., monitoring SLA breaches). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use list_active_slas for all active SLAs' or 'use get_sla_details for a specific SLA'. The context is clear but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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