get_metric_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the operation is a retrieval (조회), indicating a read action, but does not add context about error cases, return format, or permissions. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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, succinct sentence in Korean. It includes meaningful qualifiers (저장된, 단건) that clarify the scope without unnecessary words, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description confirms it retrieves a single analysis, but it does not clarify whether the response contains the full analysis object or just a summary, which is relevant given sibling tools like list_metric_analyses. Minimal but adequate for a basic lookup.

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 coverage is 100%: the jobId parameter is described as "조회할 metric analysis job ID" (metric analysis job ID to retrieve). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a single saved metric analysis ("저장된 metric analysis 단건을 조회한다"), using a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (metric analysis) with a singular scope (단건). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool list_metric_analyses, which retrieves multiple analyses.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need a specific metric analysis by job ID. It provides clear context for a single-record lookup but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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