veto_sre_advisor

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint: true. The description adds that error budget math is deterministic and prioritization uses a local agent loop, which gives useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or limitations, though none are expected given read-only nature.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second adds a key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return format. It mentions 'returns ranked reliability improvements' but does not specify structure (e.g., JSON object, list). For a tool with 5 parameters (2 optional) and deterministic output, this is a moderate gap but not severe.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in the schema; it only reiterates the main inputs implicitly. No additional syntax, defaults, or constraints are provided.

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 calculates SLO error budget status (remaining %, projected exhaustion) and returns ranked reliability improvements. This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling advisors like veto_a11y_advisor or veto_security_scan.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for SLO error budget calculations, but does not state when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or mention sibling tools like veto_debt_register or veto_metrics that might overlap.

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