get_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. "Obtiene" implies a read, but nothing is said about safety, permissions, rate limits, or response shape. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 short phrase with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise-and-complete. It is front-loaded but adds no structure or scoping detail.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no parameter detail, the description is the sole source of information and leaves an agent unable to determine what metrics are returned or where they come from. Inadequate for even a simple zero-arg 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden; baseline 4 applies. The description appropriately adds no param detail since none exist.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Obtiene métricas de rendimiento"), so an agent knows it retrieves performance metrics. However, it doesn't specify which metrics, over what scope, or from which source, leaving the purpose vague relative to the graphql-oriented sibling tools. Adequate but with clear ambiguity.

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 indication of when to call this tool versus the many siblings (graphql_query, list_sources, get_schema, etc.). No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given, so an agent must guess at its role.

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