cloud_get_server_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, error handling, or data aggregation. Only the time format is mentioned, which is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise with no redundant words. Every piece adds value: the verb 'get', the resource 'server metrics', the enumerated types, and the date format. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description omits details on data ranges, pagination, or response structure. Given 5 parameters (4 required), more context on parameter interactions and edge cases would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning: 'type' values are constrained, and 'start/end' follow RFC3339. However, it fails to explain 'server_id' or optional 'step', leaving gaps that could lead to incorrect usage.

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 it retrieves server metrics, specifies allowable metric types (cpu, disk, network), and mentions time format (RFC3339). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that start with 'cloud_get_' but focus on other resources.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion cases. The minimal info leaves the agent to infer context from the name and sibling list.

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