search_slos

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions pagination and faceted search as behavioral traits but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that conveys all essential information without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource.

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 tool's simplicity (4 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the key aspects: search, pagination, and faceted search. It does not explain return values or error handling, but this is reasonable for a search tool with simple parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining that 'query' is for searching by name/tags/attributes, and that 'page_size', 'page_number', and 'include_facets' support pagination and faceted search. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Search and filter' and the resource 'SLOs'. It specifies how (by query string, with pagination and faceted search) and differentiates from sibling tools like 'get-slos' which likely retrieves lists without query-based searching.

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 usage for searching/filtering SLOs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-slos' or when not to use it. No exclusionary language or context is provided.

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