get_slo_corrections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It states the tool lists all corrections and shows maintenance windows/exclusions, but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or confirm it is read-only. The behavioral detail is basic.

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 long with no redundant information. It conveys purpose and what the tool shows efficiently, making it easy to parse.

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?

The tool has two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the high-level output (corrections, maintenance windows, exclusions) but lacks specifics on return structure, pagination behavior, or any constraints. It is adequate for a simple list but not fully complete.

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 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description does not mention the 'offset' and 'limit' parameters or add any meaning beyond the schema. For a tool with two optional but undocumented parameters, the description fails to clarify their usage.

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 the tool lists SLO corrections (status adjustments) and explains what they are (maintenance windows and planned downtime exclusions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get-slo, get-slo-history, and list-slos by focusing specifically on corrections.

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 the tool is for viewing corrections but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or usage contexts are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling list.

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