hcloud_show_metric_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no note on data-point limits, how from_/to/period interact, whether large ranges are truncated, or any latency/rate considerations for a Cloud Eye query.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification for an 8-required-parameter tool. Brevity here is not a virtue because no useful detail is delivered.

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 tool requiring region, namespace, metric_name, dimension, aggregation, period and a time range, plus no output schema, the description should explain how the time window and period constrain results or what shape the returned data points take. None of that is present, leaving significant gaps relative to the tool's complexity.

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 100%, with each of the 8 parameters documented, including the allowed period set and filter aggregation methods, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional meaning about required combinations or the format of dim_0 beyond the schema's own 'instance_id,xxxx' example.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Show CES (Cloud Eye) metric data points'. An agent can tell this retrieves time-series metric values rather than metric definitions (hcloud_list_metrics) or alarms. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from those siblings, which keeps it at 4 rather than 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus hcloud_list_metrics or hcloud_list_alarms, nor any prerequisites such as needing a valid namespace/metric pair first. The description gives only what it does, leaving the agent to infer the selection context.

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