get_project_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It documents the return format (JSON string with specific fields like request counts and error rates) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or subject to rate limits.

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 uses a clear Args/Returns structure that front-loads the purpose and organizes details efficiently. The content is appropriately sized with no redundant sentences, though the Returns section is slightly verbose.

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 tool with 2 simple parameters and an output schema (per context signals), the description provides adequate documentation by covering parameter semantics and return structure. It sufficiently covers the tool's scope despite lacking operational safety details.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters with examples (e.g., 'wordpress_site1' for project_id) and constraints (default: 1, max: 24 for hours), providing complete semantic meaning.

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 retrieves 'historical metrics for a specific project' using specific verbs and resource types. The term 'historical' helps differentiate it from sibling tools like get_project_health, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 versus similar monitoring tools like get_project_health, check_all_projects_health, or get_system_metrics. It does not mention prerequisites or conditions for use.

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