wwa_sla_validate

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the return value is, or whether any state changes occur. The only behavioral hint is 'Validates' and 'Implements... Framework', which is insufficient.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words; the framework reference adds context without bloat.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain expected return values or error behavior. It gives a clear purpose but lacks depth for a validation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the tier names that match the schema's enum-like description.

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 a specific verb ('Validate'), identifies the resource ('agent fleet metrics'), and scopes it to SLA tier thresholds ('best-effort, production, or regulated tiers'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wwa_compliance_check by referencing the Works With Agents SLA Framework v1.0.0-draft.

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 usage when needing to check SLA compliance but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it. It provides context ('Checks whether your agent fleet meets service level guarantees') but no exclusions.

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