list_metrics

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the source is stated, but behavior such as whether all metrics are returned at once, ordering, ownership, or any side effects is not disclosed. For a zero-parameter listing tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, and adds the meaningful context of the Knowledge Base and specification reference. No filler 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 an output schema present, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It states what is listed, from where, and even references the relevant specification.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter details; there is nothing more it needs to explain about inputs.

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 a specific verb ('List') and names a clear resource: calculated metrics with formulas from the Knowledge Base, referenced as ТЗ 1.1. It is unambiguous about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as search_knowledge.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_knowledge or get_schema. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'from Knowledge Base'; no exclusions or fallback routing are provided.

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