aras_list_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. It conveys that the tool lists metrics and supports filtering by name, but does not disclose the return format/shape, whether the filter is exact or partial match, whether the full list is returned when no filter is given, or any pagination/volume behavior. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable 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?

Two sentences with no redundancy; the purpose is front-loaded with examples first, and the filter guidance follows. Efficient and appropriately sized for a single-parameter list tool, though the second sentence could add slightly more actionable 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?

For a one-optional-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and filter behavior adequately. It is missing return/format details and filter matching rules, but these are relatively minor for such a simple retrieval operation, making the definition borderline-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'filtro' parameter. It does add meaning by specifying the filter applies to the metric name ('Filtra per nome'), which is value beyond the bare parameter label. However, it does not clarify matching semantics (substring vs. exact, case sensitivity), leaving partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 the verb (list) and resource (metrics and indicators defined in Aras), backed by concrete examples ('ECR Cycle Time', 'Cost vs. Goal', 'CAD Model Release Time') that distinguish these from reports or item types. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like aras_list_reports or aras_list_dashboards, but the resource is specific enough to infer the distinction.

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 second sentence gives usage guidance for the filter parameter ('Filtra per nome se ne cerchi una in particolare'), telling the agent to use it when looking for a specific metric. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance versus other list tools is provided, nor any exclusions, so the usage context is only implied rather than stated.

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