get-slos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It implies a read-only list operation but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or any other constraints. The mention of returned fields (names, targets, status) adds some transparency but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences totaling about 30 words, front-loading the purpose and then providing behavioral cues and sibling reference. Every sentence adds value, and there is no superfluous content.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of functionality and return content. It mentions query examples and a sibling for detail, but lacks details on pagination (limit/offset) and response format, leaving minor gaps.

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% as all parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, such as default values or formatting details. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema already covers parameter semantics.

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 it lists SLOs with specific examples of queries ('show all SLOs', 'SLOs for team platform', 'which SLOs are at risk'). It also mentions what information is returned (names, targets, current status) and distinguishes from sibling 'get-slo' for detailed info.

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 example use cases and explicitly references an alternative tool ('get-slo') for detailed error budget and history. However, it does not mention other sibling tools like 'search_slos' or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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