Contract Testing: Get Metrics

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds the workspace-wide scope, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose return format, metric types, or any aggregation behavior; the annotation coverage keeps this acceptable.

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?

Description is short, front-loaded, and easy to scan. 'Toolset: Metrics' and 'Parameters: None' are somewhat redundant with the title and schema, but they are not verbose or harmful.

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 metrics fetch, this description gives enough scope and operation context for an agent to invoke it safely. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about what metrics are returned would improve completeness, but the simplicity of the tool keeps the gap small.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 under the rubric. The empty input schema fully documents that no parameters are needed, and the description's 'Parameters: None' adds no further semantics but is accurate.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a resource ('metrics'), and a clear scope ('across the entire workspace'). This scope directly distinguishes it from the sibling contract-testing_get_team_metrics, so an agent can identify which metrics tool is relevant.

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 phrase 'entire workspace' implies this is for workspace-wide metrics, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of contract-testing_get_team_metrics or other metric-related tools. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives.

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