Get Agent Outcome Metrics

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

The description discloses a behavioral edge case: 'Empty data returns insufficient_evidence,' which adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It doesn't contradict the annotation and gives the agent a clear expectation for empty results. No other behavioral traits like rate limits or error handling are mentioned, but the annotated read-only nature is already covered.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the core functionality with a clear verb and metric list, and the second adds a concise edge-case behavior. No filler words or redundancy.

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 no-parameter tool with a read-only annotation and an output schema, the description covers the operation and a specific edge case. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema handles that. The only gap is lack of contextual differentiation from get_task_outcomes, but that's a usage guideline issue, not completeness.

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 zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies. 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 the specific verb 'compute' and names the resource 'metrics from recorded task outcomes,' clearly identifying the tool's function. It lists concrete metric categories (task, tool, safety, escalation, latency, cost, business), which prevents confusion with sibling tools like get_task_outcomes, though it doesn't explicitly call out alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer that it's for computing metrics, which tautologically follows from the purpose.

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