get-metric-metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the return fields but does not explicitly disclose that the operation is read-only or safe, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects. While the example implies a lookup, the description lacks explicit behavioral guarantees.

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 two sentences: first states purpose and return fields, second gives usage guidance with an example. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the primary use case, return fields, and provides an example. It is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'metricName'. The description provides an example usage ('what does system.cpu.user mean') which hints at the expected value format, but does not specify syntax, case sensitivity, or constraints beyond the required flag. This adds value but falls short of fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Get metadata for a specific metric name' and lists the returned fields (type, unit, description, integration). It also provides a concrete example, 'what does system.cpu.user mean', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get-metrics' or 'query-metrics'.

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 says 'Use when you need to understand what a metric measures' with a usage example, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it differs from siblings like 'get-metrics' (which lists metrics) or 'query-metrics' (which retrieves data). Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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