Metis — Show Focus Areas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a non-mutating read and the description names what is surfaced (state, current contents), but it does not explicitly state that nothing is changed, nor does it note ordering, scoping, or cost for a tool that returns every focus area.

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 with the resource and the three returned aspects front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs re-reading.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema that defines the return shape, the description only needs to say what is listed, which it does. A brief note on ordering or volume (how many areas, is it paged) is the only remaining gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or selection arguments are needed because it enumerates everything.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'List every focus area, its state, and what it currently holds' tells the agent exactly what comes back. It reads as an overview-listing tool, distinguishable in spirit from focus_brief or update_focus_overview, but it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'List every focus area' – the agent can infer this is the read-only overview versus create_focus_area or set_focus_state. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to focus_brief for per-area detail.

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