get_deployment_metrics

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait: output is auto-stored and returns an object ID (@obj_123) that feeds object-store tools. That is valuable and non-obvious. It does not, however, cover auth/permission requirements, read-only nature, or rate limits.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the object-store explanation is repeated across three sentences ('referenced in other functions', 'use the object store tools', 'pass this result to other functions') with overlapping meaning. The docstring-style ':param/:returns' formatting is also less scannable than prose.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description does cover parameter meaning and the return/object-store mechanism, which is the critical missing structured data. It falls short on usage routing relative to get_deployment_stats and on any access/permission context, leaving an agent with gaps before invoking it.

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 schema provides only bare titles, and the description compensates by documenting all three parameters, including the unit for start_ms/end_ms ('unix milliseconds'). That unit detail is genuinely additive. Deployment_id is described only generically ('ID of the deployment'), so it is not perfect.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Fetches per-replica CPU/memory usage, resource limits, and replica counts for a deployment.' An agent immediately knows the resource and the metric types returned. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_deployment_stats, which an agent could plausibly confuse with it.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites. With siblings like get_deployment_stats and get_deployment present, the description should state what selects this tool over those, but it leaves that entirely to inference.

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