get_metrics

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns metrics, implying a read operation, but does not mention possible side effects, permission requirements, or performance implications. The lack of parameters simplifies but still leaves gaps.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and included metrics. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero wasted words.

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 description enumerates specific metrics returned, which is sufficient for a simple read-only tool with no parameters. However, without an output schema, some detail about the format or aggregation period could enhance completeness. Overall, it provides adequate context.

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 has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% by default. With zero parameters, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 returns server usage metrics, listing specific types (tool calls, API requests, cache hit rate, uptime). The verb '返す' (returns) indicates a read operation. The resource 'メトリクス' (metrics) is distinct from sibling tools which focus on law-related functions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites. Usage is implied by the tool's purpose (getting server metrics), but there is no explicit context or exclusion list.

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