dynatrace_managed_get_metric_details

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond a generic 'Get detailed information.' It does not disclose what details are returned, whether the metric must exist, or any response characteristics. No contradiction exists, but the description contributes little beyond the annotation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simple purpose.

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 output schema, the description should indicate what 'detailed information' includes or how the result differs from querying metric data. It also lacks any usage context or distinction from closely related metric tools, leaving an agent to guess the tool's exact role.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the target resource ('specific metric'), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like query_metrics_data or list_available_metrics, so the distinction must be inferred from the tool name.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query_metrics_data or list_available_metrics. The environment_alias parameter references get_environments_info for obtaining aliases, but this is parameter-level instruction, not usage guidance for choosing this tool.

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