vibemk_list_available_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists available metrics without explaining what 'available' means, whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any pagination or filtering behavior. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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 concise, with two short phrases and an emoji, and gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but the lack of structured sections or additional context prevents a perfect score.

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 simple listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the returned list contains and when to use it. It omits both, and also fails to mention any relationship to sibling tools, leaving the agent without enough context to correctly invoke it in varied scenarios.

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 both host_name and service_description having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—only indicating that service_description is optional for service metrics, which is already implied by the parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'available metrics' with a scope of 'for host or service'. It distinguishes the action of listing available metrics, but does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like vibemk_get_host_metrics or vibemk_search_metrics, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vibemk_get_host_metrics, vibemk_get_service_metrics, or vibemk_search_metrics. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when this listing would be preferred over fetching actual metric data.

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