slo-compliance-snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it uses Promise.allSettled for partial failures, which populate caveats[] instead of crashing. It also explains rendering behavior (Apps SDK card on ChatGPT, JSON text for Claude). This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the structured data.

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 a single paragraph with five focused sentences. Each sentence adds value: purpose, computed fields, efficiency comparison, failure handling, and rendering behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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 tool with 3 input parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (errorBudgetRemainingPct, status, caveats[]) and explains the aggregation behavior. It could mention potential rate limits or data freshness but is otherwise complete.

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 100% with good descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description does not add significant additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it confirms the purpose of historyDays and extractFields in the context of aggregation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'aggregated SLO health', 'computes errorBudgetRemainingPct and status'. It clearly states the tool replaces multiple round-trips, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-slo, get-slo-history, list-slo-corrections, and get-monitor.

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 explicitly states this tool replaces 3-5 round-trips of the individual get/list calls, implying it should be used for efficient aggregated SLO health retrieval. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios but offers clear context for when this tool is beneficial.

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