List Metric Sets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states the output structure (short key, Play resource suffix, human-readable label) and adds a scoping constraint ('this server can query'). This is transparent enough for a simple, parameterless list 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 remarkably concise: one sentence states the core purpose, and a short second sentence details the return fields. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what the tool returns and how to use the return value, leaving no obvious gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything by default. The description still adds useful context by explaining how the returned 'short key' is intended to be used, which earns a baseline 4 for parameter-semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('vitals metric sets'), and states the exact scope ('this server can query'). It also specifies the return contents (short key, resource suffix, label), clearly indicating the tool's function and distinguishing it from related siblings like get_metric_set_metadata.

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 when to use this tool: to discover metric set keys that can then be passed as the 'metric_set' argument, likely to query_vitals. It provides clear context for use, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use it.

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