Contract Testing: Get Team Metrics

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only the 'all teams' scope and no additional behavioral detail such as response shape, aggregation behavior, or authorization context, but this is acceptable for a simple read operation.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence. The 'Toolset' and 'Parameters' lines are somewhat redundant with the title and schema, but they do not bloat the description significantly.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is mostly sufficient, especially with the annotations covering safety. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify what metrics are returned or how they are grouped, which could matter when choosing between this and contract-testing_get_metrics.

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 is empty and the description explicitly states 'Parameters: None,' so there are no parameter semantics to add. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies here because the schema already fully describes the absence of inputs.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('metrics for all teams'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The scope qualifier 'all teams' also distinguishes it from the sibling contract-testing_get_metrics, which appears to be the more general metrics tool.

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 the tool should be used when team-level metrics are needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over contract-testing_get_metrics or other related tools. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative-routing information.

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