Browse Metric Tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining that browsing reveals metric paths without modifying data, and that rollup controls aggregation behavior. It does not contradict annotations.

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 well-structured with bullet points for top-level folders and custom metrics. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence serves a clear function. There is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly states what is returned ('Array of child metric nodes with name, type (folder or leaf), and full path'). Combined with thorough parameter guidance and usage context, the tool is fully self-contained for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Although the input schema already describes the parameters with 100% coverage, the description adds extra meaning: example paths for metricPath, clarification that rollup defaults to true and when to set false, and the structure of custom metrics. This significantly aids correct usage.

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 explicitly states 'Browse the AppDynamics metric tree to discover available metric paths.' This clearly identifies the verb (browse) and resource (metric tree), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like appd_get_metric_data which retrieves data rather than exploring paths.

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 gives explicit guidance: call without metricPath for top-level, then drill down with specific paths. It also explains when to set rollup=false (node-level browsing) and lists common top-level folders. This provides clear context for when and how to use the tool.

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