evaluate_slo

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It reveals the return type 'SLOVerdict' and the key field 'compliance_pct', giving some insight into expected output. Yet it never explicitly says whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, and there is no discussion of error handling or prerequisites.

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 sentences with no superfluous content. The first sentence is a dense statement of purpose, and the second adds usage and return value, making every word valuable.

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 (two string parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage, and output. It mentions the return object and its key metric, which is adequate for a CI gate without requiring extensive warnings or side-effect notes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively maps 'results_path' to 'JTL results' and 'slo_path' to 'slo.properties', clarifying the purpose of each parameter beyond the terse schema titles. It does not detail file formats but that is likely sufficient for a straightforward file-path tool.

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 states 'Gate JTL results against an slo.properties file', which is a specific verb (Gate) plus resource (JTL results and slo.properties). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like analyze_results, and the second sentence confirms its role in CI pass/fail decisions.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use for CI pass/fail decisions', providing clear context on when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention any alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of the full 5.

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