harmony_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It vaguely suggests inspection of metrics but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what data format is returned, if there are rate limits, or any side effects. The term 'prototype' hints at experimental status but lacks concrete behavioral details.

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 brief but not front-loaded with clear purpose. The single sentence includes ambiguous terms like 'prototype' and 'ports resonance-bridge' that don't add immediate clarity. While concise, it lacks efficient communication of the tool's core function.

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?

Given the complexity implied by abstract terms like 'harmony' and 'propagation metrics', and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what metrics are returned, how they are structured, or what 'ports resonance-bridge' refers to, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, making it adequate in this dimension. No additional parameter semantics are required.

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 vague terms like 'inspect' and 'metrics' without specifying what exactly is being inspected or what metrics are returned. While it mentions 'harmony, load distribution, and propagation metrics', these are abstract concepts rather than concrete resources or operations. The description restates the tool name ('harmony_metrics') rather than providing a clear, distinct purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings like 'balance_load', 'observe_ecosystem_state', or 'visualize_coupling_graph'. The mention of 'ports resonance-bridge' is cryptic and doesn't clarify the context or prerequisites for usage. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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