monitoring_sla_status

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. Only states it is 'SAFE' and calculates based on uptime percentage, but omits details like whether it modifies state, requires permissions, or has side effects. The formula or handling of edge cases (e.g., 100% uptime) is unclear.

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?

Single sentence, no filler words. Efficient but could benefit from structured breakdown (e.g., bullet points for parameters). The '[SAFE]' prefix adds useful safety context.

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?

Lacks output schema, so description must explain return values (e.g., what are SLA statuses, allowed downtime units). Does not address period's impact on calculation. Incomplete for a computation tool.

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%, yet the description only mentions 'uptime percentage' broadly. It fails to explain uptimePercent (number range, percentage vs decimal) or period (meaning of daily/weekly/monthly/yearly, default behavior). No added value over bare schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool's action (calculate) and resource (SLA status and allowed downtime), with specific input (uptime percentage). Distinguishes from sibling tools like monitoring_uptime_check by focusing on SLA calculation rather than live status checking.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., monitoring_uptime_check, monitoring_alerts). No mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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