get_performance_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Get' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is appropriate. However, it does not mention any required permissions, data scope limitations, or potential impacts, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no extraneous information, and the key action and resource are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It tells what the tool does but does not explain return values or any contextual constraints. For a straightforward 'get' tool, this may be sufficient, but it lacks completeness compared to richer descriptions.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivial. The description adds context by specifying 'for strategy selection and usage', which clarifies the intended use case. Since no parameters need documentation, the description adequately serves its purpose.

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 'Get performance metrics for strategy selection and usage' uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('performance metrics'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_strategy_details' or 'discover_strategies', which focus on strategies themselves. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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 performance metrics are needed for strategy selection, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, relying on the context of sibling tool names.

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