List SLA Policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the exact permission requirement ('Requires an admin token (or a custom role granted the SLA-management permission)') and clarifies that standard agents cannot use this tool. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise—approximately three sentences—and front-loads the key purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, use case, and permission guidance. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple list tool with pagination and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns (SLA policies with filter conditions and targets), why to use it, and who can use it. It does not detail pagination behavior, but the schema covers parameters. It is complete enough for an agent to decide correctly.

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% for both parameters (page and per_page) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List the configured SLA policies with their filter conditions and per-priority reply/resolution targets.' It specifies a concrete verb ('list') and resource ('SLA policies'), and differentiates itself from sibling tools like list_tickets or list_articles by focusing solely on SLA policies.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to explain why a given target applies to a ticket and to reconstruct deadlines deterministically instead of hard-coding the policy matrix.' It also provides alternative access methods: 'a standard agent token gets 403 here, though it can still read live per-ticket SLA via get_ticket / search_tickets.'

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