interpret_metric

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

No annotations provided, and the description lacks any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, required permissions, or what the output format is. The description is too vague to inform an AI about side effects or constraints.

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 one sentence, front-loading the purpose. However, the colon and list could be better structured for readability.

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 no output schema and a single parameter, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., interpretation text or structured data). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's output.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists all enum values and adds the important behavior that omitting the parameter interprets all metrics. This provides meaningful extra context beyond 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 clearly indicates the tool interprets social metrics and provides actions, listing the supported metrics. The name 'interpret_metric' aligns well, and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'build_content_calendar' or 'get_caption_framework'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Omit for all' hints at usage but does not provide clear context or exclusions.

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