apps_perf_power_metrics_get_to_many_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing. The only signal is the 'GET' verb, which weakly implies a safe read, but there is no disclosure of filtering semantics, pagination, or what the returned metrics contain.

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?

It is short, but the content is a duplicated URL with no front-loaded purpose statement; the parenthetical repetition is pure waste. Under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 must carry the load, yet it omits what the endpoint returns, how the filters combine, and how it differs from the builds variant. For a 4-parameter GET among hundreds of siblings this is inadequate.

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 100%: the required 'id' plus filter_platform, filter_deviceType, and filter_metricType are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 is only the raw HTTP route 'GET /v1/apps/{id}/perfPowerMetrics', duplicated verbatim in parentheses. It conveys the resource (an app's performance/power metrics) but is effectively a restatement of the tool name rather than a stated purpose, and it does not distinguish this tool from the near-identical sibling builds_perf_power_metrics_get_to_many_related.

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 whatsoever: no conditions, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling builds_perf_power_metrics_get_to_many_related that an agent must choose between. The endpoint string provides no selection criteria.

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