get_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly indicates a read-only operation (returning metrics), but it does not mention behavior when no run exists, nor does it address authentication or rate limits. The description is accurate but minimal.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the main purpose. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Though the tool has no parameters and a simple purpose, the description lacks detail on the return format (e.g., are the metrics presented as numbers in an object?) and fails to explain the concept of 'the last run' or how runs are defined. Siblings exist, so more context would help.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (all parameters described). The description adds no parameter information, but per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 returns aggregate metrics (LLM calls, tool calls, revisions) of the last run. It uses a specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource 'aggregate metrics', distinguishing it from siblings like run_task and get_trace.

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 implies usage after a run (by referencing 'the last run'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_trace or run_task. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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