list_remediation_sla

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are ordered by soonest target date, and several filter shortcuts such as breaches only and upcoming-due windows are described.

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 front-loaded sentences with no wasted text. It states the purpose first, then lists the filtering modes and ordering behavior efficiently.

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 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete for calling the tool. It omits explicit return-shape and pagination details, but the absence of an output schema and the presence of schema-documented limit/query parameters make this a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description reinforces the main filters in natural language, including ttr_status values, breached-only filtering, due windows, and assignment group, but adds little syntax or detail beyond the schema itself.

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 a specific verb and resource: listing SLA (Time-To-Remediate) status for Vulnerable Items, Remediation Tasks, or Vulnerability Groups. It clearly distinguishes this reporting view from sibling tools such as list_remediation_tasks or list_vulnerable_items by centering on SLA status and target-date ordering.

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 explains the available filtering modes and the ordering behavior, which gives an agent enough context to use the tool correctly. It does not explicitly state when to prefer get_remediation_sla or get_group_sla instead, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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