List available metrics

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful detail that the prefix filter is client-side, implying all metrics may be fetched before filtering, but it does not mention limits, pagination, or potential large-result behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well organized with a one-line summary followed by brief Use cases, Args, and Returns sections. It is concise and scannable, though 'Returns: List of metric names' partially duplicates the opening sentence.

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 low-complexity, read-only tool with no required parameters, the description covers purpose, example triggers, parameters, and return shape. Minor gaps such as result-size limits or large-list performance are not critical given the simplicity of the tool and the annotations.

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 schema already documents prefix with an example, so the description mostly restates it, though it adds the meaningful 'client-side' nuance. For response_format, the schema provides an enum but no description, and the description clarifies the allowed values as 'markdown' or 'json.' With 50% schema coverage, this is adequate but not substantial.

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 action and resource: 'Returns all metrics (host/service series names) stored in KairosDB.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like kairosdb_list_tag_values and the query tools, which focus on tag values or time series data rather than metric names.

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?

Concrete use-case examples such as 'Which metrics are available for the servers?' and 'List all metrics starting with "server."' communicate when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the usage context is clear enough.

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