get_system_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the specific metrics returned (uptime, request counts, error rates) and output format (JSON string), but omits behavioral details like required permissions, caching behavior, or whether this is a lightweight read 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?

Well-structured with a clear opening statement followed by a bulleted list of specific metrics. The final 'Returns:' line is slightly redundant given the bullets already enumerate the output, but overall the description is appropriately sized without excessive verbosity.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description provides complete contextual information by enumerating the specific system metrics included in the response, making it sufficient for agent selection and invocation.

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 contains zero parameters. With no parameters to document, the baseline score applies per the rubric.

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 'Get[s] overall MCP server metrics and statistics' with specific resource (MCP server) and verb (Get). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'get_project_metrics' and 'get_project_health' by specifying 'system-wide' scope versus project-level monitoring.

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?

While the description implies this is for server-wide monitoring versus project-specific health (distinguishing from 'get_project_metrics'), it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'appwrite_health_check', 'directus_health_check', or other service-specific health tools.

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