vibemk_search_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, the output format, or any side effects like pagination or rate limiting. As a search tool it is likely harmless, but this is not disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the search returns (e.g., metric names, time-series data, counts). It does not, and the ambiguity is significant given the existence of list_available_metrics and get_host_metrics. Missing details about result format and pagination make it insufficient for reliable use.

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 schema provides descriptions for all five parameters (aggregation, time range, host filter, site filter, service filter), so schema coverage is high. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the existing schema hints.

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 tool searches/filters performance data across hosts and services, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from host/service-specific metric tools by using 'across hosts/services', but the exact nature of the returned data (metric names vs. values) remains somewhat ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus related tools like get_host_metrics, get_service_metrics, or list_available_metrics. The description does not specify conditions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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