export_health_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value (file path) and output format (JSON), but lacks important behavioral details like whether it overwrites existing files, creates parent directories, or has file size limitations.

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?

Uses a structured docstring format (Args/Returns) that is concise and scannable. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured metadata. Slightly formal but efficient.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter tool with an output schema. However, given the lack of annotations, it should clarify the scope of 'all health metrics' (system-wide? project-specific?) and file system behaviors (overwrites, path validation).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by documenting the single parameter (output_path) in the Args section, including its semantic meaning ('Path to output file') and default value ('logs/metrics_export.json').

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 action ('Export'), resource ('all health metrics'), and output format ('JSON file'). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get' tools (e.g., get_system_metrics, get_project_health) by explicitly mentioning file export rather than data retrieval.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus the various 'get' health/metrics siblings (get_system_metrics, get_project_metrics, etc.). While 'export' implies persistence to disk, the description doesn't clarify when file export is preferred over direct data retrieval.

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