apps__perf_power_metrics__list

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the list/GET action and the endpoint path; it does not mention pagination behavior, response shape, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with no redundant wording. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the endpoint reference is a useful compact addition.

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?

For a read-only list operation with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits pagination context around next_url, provides no output-shape expectations since there is no output schema, and does not explicitly distinguish this app-level tool from the build-level perf metrics sibling. These gaps reduce completeness for an agent choosing between related tools.

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 all five parameters including id, next_url, and the filter fields. The description contributes only the endpoint's {id} placeholder and the general app scope, which adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the perf power metrics belonging to an app.' It is clear what the tool does and which parent resource it targets. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool builds__perf_power_metrics__list, even though the app-level scope implies the distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the build-level perf power metrics sibling or any other alternatives. It only states the basic action and resource scope, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria on its own.

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