get_project_metrics

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Get historical metrics' without mentioning side effects (e.g., read-only nature), error handling, or authorization needs. This is insufficient for an agent to understand implications of invocation.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. However, it is too brief and lacks structure; it could include details about output or constraints. While concise, it sacrifices informativeness.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and only two simple parameters, the description is partially complete. It does not explain the return format or error conditions, but the output schema may cover the former. Still, the description alone is insufficient for full autonomy.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond 'historical metrics' hinting at time context. Baseline is 3 due to 100% schema coverage; the description doesn't enhance understanding.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'historical metrics' scoped to a specific project. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_project_health or get_project_info, which could lead to confusion.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, such as requiring a valid project_id, nor any context about when not to use it. The description assumes the agent knows the purpose without additional instructions.

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