Get Script Metrics

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already indicate safety. The description adds context about returned fields (active users, executions, failures) but does not disclose potential behaviors like pagination, latency, or data retention limits. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but additional context would improve 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 two concise sentences: one for purpose and one for return data examples. No redundant information; perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 presence of an output schema (via context signals), the description adequately covers the tool's functionality by listing example return fields. It does not detail time-range behavior or filtering options, but these are implied by the metrics_granularity parameter. Reasonably complete for a metrics retrieval tool.

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% with all three parameters described adequately. The description does not add new meaning or clarify parameter usage beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Title and description clearly state the verb ('gets'), resource ('execution metrics for a script project'), and specific return data (active users, total executions, failed executions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_script_project and run_script_function.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving execution analytics but lacks guidance on exclusions or comparisons with siblings like debug_docs_runtime_info or list_script_processes.

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