slo_define_objectives

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden but reveals nothing: whether it writes files into the directory, returns definitions inline, consumes api_key for an external service, or mutates existing configuration. It restates the action without any operational context.

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 single phrase is front-loaded and contains no wasted words, but it is lean to the point of under-specification rather than deliberate concise editing. It's short because there is nothing else to say, not because everything important has been said.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent needs to know what 'generate definitions' produces (created files? returned YAML?), what api_key enables, how the directory is consumed, and how this differs from slo_calculate_budget/slo_generate_alerts. None of this is present — the entire definition is a four-word phrase.

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 50% — only 'directory' has a schema-level description. The description adds zero meaning for either parameter: api_key appears in the schema with no description and the tool description never mentions it, while 'directory' is only glossed as 'Project directory'.

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 verb ('Generate') and resource ('SLO/SLI definitions'), and the resource phrase separates it from the sibling family — slo_calculate_budget handles budgets, slo_generate_alerts handles alerts. However, it largely paraphrases the tool name and never specifies what a definition contains or what deliverable is actually produced.

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 on when to choose this tool over slo_calculate_budget or slo_generate_alerts, no prerequisites (e.g., whether an existing project or api_key is required), and no exclusions. The only usage signal an agent gets is implicit inference from the name.

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