list_slos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what SLOs are but doesn't cover key behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the structure of returned data. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and another explaining SLOs. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the second sentence, while informative, could be considered slightly extraneous if the agent already understands SLOs, but it doesn't significantly detract from efficiency.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects, usage context, and output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets a basic threshold without being comprehensive.

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%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Service Level Objectives (SLOs) from Datadog'), and provides a brief explanation of what SLOs are. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_monitors' or 'list_metrics', which could also involve listing Datadog resources. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or specific contexts where listing SLOs is appropriate. Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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