get_tenant_slo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals the dependency on a port-forward and the data source (Prometheus recording rules), which is helpful, but it doesn't mention potential failure modes, required permissions, or whether the operation is purely read-only. Still, the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'Récupère'.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and outputs, and includes the essential prerequisite. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 description clearly states what data will be returned (availability, error budget, p95 latency) and the necessary setup, which is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool with only one parameter and no output schema. It doesn't detail return formatting, but that is reasonable for this level of complexity.

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?

The single parameter 'tenant' is well described in the schema (namespace name, example team-a), and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 uses the specific verb 'Récupère' and clearly identifies the resource (tenant SLO data) and the exact metrics retrieved (availability, error budget, p95 latency). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target tenants, pods, or Argo CD applications.

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 a concrete prerequisite (active port-forward to Prometheus), which gives operational guidance, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusion cases. Usage context is implied rather than fully stated.

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