metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Get available metrics', which implies a read operation but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or response format. The presence of 'page' and 'page_size' parameters hints at pagination, but this is not explained.

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 extremely short (one sentence), but it lacks necessary detail. Conciseness is achieved at the cost of completeness, making it under-specified. The structure is flat and does not front-load key information beyond the basic purpose.

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 four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how parameters work, or when to use it. The tool's complexity demands a richer description.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter semantics, but it does not. It mentions none of the four parameters (token, page, page_size, component), leaving the agent to guess their purpose and format. This is a critical gap.

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 states 'Get available metrics from Codescan', clearly indicating the verb (get) and resource (metrics). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools 'issues' and 'projects' by referring to a different resource type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from potential other metric-related tools.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases. The agent is left without guidance on tool selection.

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