Contract Testing: Get Metrics

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is safe and non-destructive. Description adds the workspace scope but does not disclose any other behavioral traits (e.g., return format, data volume).

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a toolset label and parameter note. No extraneous information, front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 parameterless read-only tool with comprehensive annotations, the description adequately conveys its purpose and scope. However, it does not specify what metrics are returned, which could be beneficial for agent decision-making given the lack of an output schema.

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?

No parameters exist; input schema has zero properties with 100% coverage. Description explicitly states 'Parameters: None', which is sufficient. According to calibration, 0 params have baseline 4.

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?

Description clearly states 'Fetch metrics across the entire workspace', specifying the action (fetch), resource (metrics), and scope (entire workspace). This distinguishes it from sibling tool contract-testing_get_team_metrics, which is team-specific.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like contract-testing_get_team_metrics. The description implies it is for workspace-wide metrics but doesn't state when that is appropriate or how it differs.

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