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. It transparently states the time range, the granularity (hourly data points), and the data fields returned. It doesn't explicitly mention read-only behavior, but the focus on returning metrics strongly implies it is a safe read operation; no side effects are indicated.

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 concise: two sentences that lead with the action and scope, then describe the return format. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and an output schema is present. The description covers the purpose, the time window, and the type of data returned, which is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It doesn't need to detail return formats since the output schema exists.

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 input schema already fully describes the sole parameter (projectId) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond referencing 'a project', so it doesn't improve on the schema's coverage. The baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 usage and performance metrics'), the target resource ('a project'), and a specific time window ('last 24 hours'). It also differentiates from siblings like get_project and search_logs by specifying the metric data (request counts, errors, latency percentiles).

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to retrieve recent usage and performance metrics for a project. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specific scope ('last 24 hours') implies when it would be appropriate. Sibling tools like get_project are for different purposes, though this is not stated.

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