get-slo

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes the return data (error budget, burn rate, etc.), implying a read operation. Lacks explicit statements about idempotency, permissions, or error behavior, but is adequate for a simple get operation.

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, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and return fields; second provides usage guidance. Perfectly sized and front-loaded.

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 the simple input schema (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, return fields, and usage in a sequence. Could mention that the ID must come from get-slos or that the response includes additional fields, but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds minimal value beyond the schema, tying 'configured alerts' to withConfiguredAlertIds. No additional semantic context needed.

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?

Clearly states 'Get detailed SLO information by ID' and enumerates the specific fields returned (error budget, burn rate, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling get-slos (which lists SLOs) and get-slo-history.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Use after get-slos to understand a specific SLO's health and history.' This gives clear context for when to use this tool. Could mention when to prefer get-slo-history, but the guidance is sufficient.

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