wetrack_trigger_sla_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly explains that WETRACK_AUTH_KEY, not the regular user JWT, is required, that the key can come from the environment, and that an admin should be contacted if needed. It does not fully spell out side effects such as whether breach notifications are sent, but the "SLA breach notification check" phrasing plus the auth and scheduler context provide strong behavioral guidance.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence followed by the scheduler context and parameter details. A small amount of redundancy exists between the auth_key argument note and the final environment-variable note, but no unnecessary content is present.

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 covers the tool's purpose, invocation context, parameter semantics, auth requirements, and a caveat about using the system key instead of a user JWT. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide whether and how to call it, especially since the output schema already exists to describe return values.

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?

Although the schema provides no property descriptions, the tool description explains both parameters: breach_count is the number of SLA breaches to process with an example, and auth_key is the system auth key with a fallback to the environment variable. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage and adds meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Trigger the SLA breach notification check." It immediately marks the tool as [System/Admin], and the manual trigger purpose is distinct from all sibling tools, especially other trigger-like tools such as wetrack_trigger_sprint_burndown_snapshot.

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 clearly states that this is normally called by an automated scheduler and that the tool exists for manual testing or on-demand checks. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the scheduler context plus the [System/Admin] tag gives an agent enough guidance on when invocation is appropriate.

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