get_service_level

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond the return structure.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. The first sentence encapsulates the tool's purpose and return structure, the second specifies the parameter usage. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (listing components of the definitions) and the parameter usage. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the 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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a single 'guid' parameter described as 'Entity GUID'. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that the GUID can be of the instrumented entity or of a SERVICE_LEVEL entity itself, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 'Get' and the resource 'full definitions of Service Level Indicators attached to an entity', listing specific components like event queries, SLI functions, objectives, time windows. It distinguishes from siblings like list_service_levels which likely only list without full definitions.

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 specifies that it accepts the GUID of the instrumented entity or a SERVICE_LEVEL entity, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related tasks like listing SLIs.

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