get_responder_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral context. It mentions 'oncall hours are computed authoritatively, accounting for schedule overlaps,' which provides extra confidence but does not disclose any new behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a brief paragraph on functionality, and a bullet-point Args list. It is appropriately sized given the parameter count, though the 'Returns' line is slightly redundant with the output schema present. No wasted words.

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 8 parameters (2 required), 0% schema description coverage, and presence of output schema, the description covers all parameters with types and acceptable values, explains the return type, and provides operational context (authoritative computation). This is complete for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides a detailed Args section explaining each parameter, including value formats (ISO8601, 'asc'/'desc'). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and adds meaningful guidance for correct invocation.

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 gets responder metrics aggregated by team from PagerDuty Analytics, listing specific metrics (oncall seconds, interruption counts, engaged time, incident counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_responder_load_metrics and get_incident_metrics_* by focusing on responder-level analytics.

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 defines the tool's purpose and parameters but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It implies usage for responder metrics but lacks guidance on exclusions or when other analytics tools are more appropriate. The context of date range and filters is clear, but no alternatives are mentioned.

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