get_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose output-shaping behavior: deterministic aggregates (min/max/average/last) are always returned, raw points only when include_points=True, and results are bounded. It says nothing about auth requirements, defaults for time_range, or rate limits, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the two key constraints; almost no filler. The trailing word 'bounded' is terse to the point of ambiguity about what bound applies.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not restate return fields, and it still usefully flags the conditional raw-points behavior. Given the 0% parameter coverage, it leaves time_range, service, and environment semantics undocumented, which is the main gap.

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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does: it explains metric_names (canonical names from get_services) and include_points, and hints at max_points via 'bounded'. service, environment, and time_range semantics (inclusive start / exclusive end, default) are left entirely to the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get metric series for a service'), which naturally separates it from siblings like get_logs or get_service_health that operate on different resources. It is clear but never explicitly names a sibling or contrasting scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives a concrete precondition: metric_names must be canonical names obtained from get_services' available_metrics, effectively telling the agent to call get_services first. It does not state when to prefer get_metrics over get_operational_snapshot or get_service_health, so no exclusions are covered.

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