list-slo-corrections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about the content (exclusions from SLO calculations) but does not elaborate on pagination, ordering, or potential side effects. It adds some value beyond annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical explanation. Every word serves a purpose; no redundant information.

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?

For a simple list tool with pagination parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly adequate. It could be improved by mentioning what fields are in each correction object, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity make it sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (offset and limit) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool lists SLO status corrections and explains what those are (maintenance windows, deployments excluded from SLO calculations). It distinguishes from siblings like list-slos (SLOs, not corrections) and get-slo-correction (single item).

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 implies use when you need a list of SLO corrections rather than a single correction (get-slo-correction) or a list of SLOs (list-slos). However, it does not explicitly state when to use or when to avoid using this tool.

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