Contract Testing: Get Team Metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, non-destructive reads. The description adds the scope 'for all teams', which is useful beyond annotations, but lacks details on what metrics are included or any side effects.

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 at 3 lines, front-loading the core action ('Fetch metrics for all teams') and including only necessary metadata (toolset, parameters). Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, rich annotations), the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know: it fetches team-wide metrics. The scope is clear, though the exact metric fields are assumed.

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 with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description states 'Parameters: None', confirming no inputs needed. Per rubric, baseline is 4 for no parameters, and no additional explanation is required.

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 'Fetch metrics for all teams', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from the sibling 'contract-testing_get_metrics' by specifying the scope (all teams), avoiding ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'contract-testing_get_metrics'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

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