run_metric_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions that results are stored, implying a side effect, but it does not explain permissions, execution duration, failure handling, or whether the operation is asynchronous. Minimal side-effect disclosure is present but insufficient for a run/execute tool.

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 sentence, direct and free of redundant details. It communicates the core action and resource clearly. While it is terse for a tool with 7 parameters, the sentence earns its place by stating purpose concisely.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description is not complete enough. It omits information about return values, side effects, and when to use this tool relative to other analysis tools. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the 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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, and it does not clarify interdependencies like how sourceType determines whether astData or sourceCode is relevant. The schema does the heavy lifting.

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's function: requesting the CodeVi backend to execute metric analysis and store the results. This distinguishes it from sibling get/list tools and other analysis tools. The verb 'run' is implicit in the tool name, and the resource is explicitly 'metric analysis'.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like get_metric_analysis or analyze_python_smells. There is no 'use this when' context.

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