parse_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions parsing and analyzing metrics, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., structured data or summary). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('parse') and context ('devpipe run'), with no wasted words. It directly states the purpose and supported formats, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and formats, but lacks details on output behavior, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, the agent might struggle to fully understand how to use this tool effectively in context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (metricsPath and format with enum values). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the file types (JUnit XML or SARIF JSON) and the context of 'devpipe run', but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: parsing metrics from devpipe runs to analyze test results or security findings. It specifies the verb 'parse' and the resource 'metrics', and mentions the source formats (JUnit XML or SARIF JSON). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dashboard_data' or 'view_run_logs', which might also handle devpipe data, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'devpipe run' and the specific formats (JUnit or SARIF), suggesting it should be used when analyzing test or security metrics from such runs. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_last_run' or 'analyze_project', nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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