system_nodes_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no scope (all nodes vs. one), no aggregation window, no rate/limit notes. It is a pure restatement of the name.

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?

Three words, front-loaded with verb and resource, with zero waste — but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, since it conveys almost no information.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of telling the agent what is returned, and it does not. It omits metric scope, granularity, and response shape for a metrics endpoint surrounded by overlapping statistics tools.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter syntax for the description to explain.

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 Nodes Metrics" essentially restates the tool name (system_nodes_metrics) with no added specificity. It doesn't indicate which metrics (CPU, bandwidth, connections) or how it differs from close siblings like system_nodes_statistics, nodes_get, or bandwidth_nodes_usage.

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, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives despite a dense sibling set covering node statistics, bandwidth, and system stats. The agent must guess when this tool is preferable to system_nodes_statistics.

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