dynatrace_managed_get_slo_details

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

readOnlyHint=true aligns with the read-only nature of 'Get detailed information,' so there is no contradiction. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as return format, rate limits, or prerequisites, but for a simple read-only detail tool the annotation covers the main safety trait.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states exactly what the tool does without redundancy or filler.

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 schema and read-only annotation make the tool callable: required parameters are clear, and timeFrame/from/to/environment_alias semantics are documented. However, there is no output schema and the description does not summarize what 'details' include or mention that an SLO ID must first be obtained via list_slos, leaving some ambiguity for an agent evaluating whether this tool answers a specific question.

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 100%, with all five parameters documented including formats, conditional usage, and environment-alias behavior. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('detailed information about a specific SLO'). It differentiates itself from sibling list_slos by targeting one specific SLO, and from other get_* tools by naming the resource.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It implies the user already knows an SLO ID, but it does not mention using list_slos to obtain an ID or when to prefer this tool over list_slos. The only cross-tool reference, get_environments_info, appears in a parameter description rather than usage guidance.

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