Get VM metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered and the description only needs to add operational context. It contributes the metric scope and the look-back window, but says nothing about aggregation granularity, response volume for large hour values, or rate limits on a live-metrics endpoint.

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 that states action, resource, metric scope, and time window with no redundant wording. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

With no output schema, the agent gets no picture of the return shape — whether metrics come back as one time series per metric, aggregated points, or raw samples — and the interaction between 'hours' and 'sample_period' on result size is unexplained. For a read-only metrics tool with full schema coverage this is adequate but leaves a real gap around return format.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the UUID source for 'id'. The description reinforces the 'hours' look-back semantics but adds nothing for 'sample_period', which is left entirely to the schema and is the parameter most likely to affect result size.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('metrics for a VM') and enumerates the metric families returned (CPU, memory, network, disk), which clearly separates it from get_vm or list_vms. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_vm, get_server_info, or the cost-estimate tools, and no preconditions or exclusions are given. The only routing hint ('VM identifier from list_vms or create_vm') lives in the schema, not the description.

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