Get Metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing on top of that: no indication of what metric families come back, whether results are aggregated per operation or across sessions, or whether any auth/scope applies.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the second fragment ("Operation lifecycle and session management") does not earn its place because it conveys no actionable information about this tool. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but the tool takes a nested free-form details object plus an operation_id with no indication of expected shape or defaults being empty. For a metrics-lookup tool sitting among several operation-lifecycle siblings, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (including the note that operation_id is shared with get_progress/cancel), which sets the baseline at 3. The description contributes no additional meaning about how operation_id, operation_type, total_steps or the nested details object affect the metrics returned.

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?

"Get metrics (tm_operations)" mostly restates the tool name and title, and the follow-up "Operation lifecycle and session management" reads as a category label rather than a statement of what is being retrieved. It never says whose metrics, at what granularity, or how this differs from tm_operation_get_progress, so an agent cannot distinguish the two from the description alone.

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 when-to-use guidance or exclusion. The sibling set contains an obvious alternative (tm_operation_get_progress) and a session lister (tm_operation_list_sessions), but the description offers nothing about which one to pick or what prerequisite (a valid operation_id) is needed first.

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