rlm_htask_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It lists the metrics included but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur, or what permissions are required. This lack of transparency makes it harder for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second enumerates the key metrics. This structure is ideal for quick comprehension by an AI agent.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema) but the description does not explain the return format or any additional behavioral context. For a 'comprehensive' metrics tool, an agent might need to know the structure of the response (e.g., object fields). However, the description does list the metric categories, providing some context. Overall, it is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters (swarm_id and period_hours), so the schema already explains them. The description adds value by listing the categories of metrics included (throughput, aging, blocked/recovered ratio, top blockers), which gives context but does not directly explain parameter usage. Thus, marginal added value beyond schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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's purpose: 'Get comprehensive metrics for htasks in a swarm.' It specifies the resource (htasks in a swarm) and uses a direct verb. Among many sibling htask tools, it is uniquely identified as a metrics tool, distinguishing it from auditing, blocking, or creation tools.

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 implies usage when metrics like throughput, aging, blocked/recovered ratio, and top blockers are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as rlm_htask_audit_trail or rlm_stats. There is no guidance on when not to use it or which other tools might be more appropriate.

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