slo-compliance-snapshot

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds critical behavior: use of Promise.allSettled to handle partial failures via caveats[], rendering an Apps SDK card on ChatGPT clients, and computing specific fields. This significantly aids agent understanding of side effects.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with key purpose, followed by efficiency gains, technical behavior, and output format. No fluff or redundancy.

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 purpose, behavior, and output format (card/JSON). Without an output schema, it could detail response structure more, but it sufficiently informs an agent about what to expect.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, such as elaborating on extractFields usage or historyDays default. Baseline of 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 clearly states the tool aggregates SLO health data, including config, history, corrections, and linked monitor states, computing errorBudgetRemainingPct and status. It distinguishes from siblings like get-slo, get-slo-history, and list-slo-corrections by noting it replaces 3-5 round-trips.

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 compares to individual tools, stating it replaces multiple round-trips and uses Promise.allSettled for partial failures. It implies when to use (for a comprehensive snapshot) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools.

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