get_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but no details are given about side effects, permissions, rate limits, pagination, or the structure of the returned data. This is minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded and easily parsed. While it is very brief, that brevity is not a flaw in terms of structure; it is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, though arguably too short to be fully informative.

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 tool with two optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides only a high-level purpose. It does not explain how parameters affect behavior, what the return value looks like, or any operational constraints. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter (maxEvents, includeEvents). The agent receives no explanation of what these parameters control or how they affect results. The names hint at their purpose, but the tool description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving parameter semantics poorly defined.

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's action: 'Get telemetry metrics and recent events' – a specific verb ('get') and resource ('telemetry metrics' and 'recent events'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like file/process/IDE commands, which are unrelated. However, it lacks detail on what constitutes telemetry metrics or how they are scoped.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is given about scenarios that would call for get_metrics, nor is there any mention of alternative tools or exclusions. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent without directional usage information.

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