Metis — Focus Safe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only obliquely implies a read ('What is in...'). It never states whether the operation mutates state, what permissions are needed, or any rate/behavioral traits. Return details are omitted, though an output schema exists to cover them.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is structurally fine. However, the brevity comes at the cost of the metaphor standing in for real meaning, so the sentence does not fully earn its place.

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 sitting in a large focus-area family, the definition is too thin to orient an agent: purpose, parameters, and read/write nature are all left implicit. The presence of an output schema covers return values but not the core ambiguity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required 'slug' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never explains what the slug identifies or its format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 gestures at a resource (a focus area's 'safe' and what it has 'cooled on') but supplies no verb, so it is unclear whether this reads, lists, or mutates state. The metaphors 'safe' and 'cool on' are Metis-specific jargon an agent cannot resolve from the text, and nothing distinguishes it from the dozen siblings like focus_brief, show_focus_areas, or focus_decline.

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 indication of when to call this versus the many neighboring focus tools (focus_brief, preview_focus_lens, focus_keep, focus_decline). No prerequisites, no state conditions, no alternatives are named.

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