Get metrics

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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by specifying that the metrics are historical and enumerating CPU, memory, disk, network, and uptime, but it does not disclose response structure, time-series granularity, date format, or pagination behavior.

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 core action is stated in the first sentence, followed by a compact bullet list of included metrics and a one-sentence use case. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool has only three required scalar parameters, and the description correctly identifies the VM and the date range plus the metrics returned. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe the response shape or the date string format, leaving some ambiguity for an agent preparing the call.

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 parameter semantics baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful details about the date parameters beyond their names; the schema's own date descriptions ('date_to parameter') are tautological, so the agent still has to guess the expected date string format.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve historical metrics for a specified virtual machine,' and the bullet list clarifies exactly which metrics are included. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling VPS tools like VPS_getScanMetricsV1, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Use this endpoint to monitor VPS performance and resource utilization over time' gives a clear intended use case. It does not mention when to prefer an alternative or state exclusions, but for a read-only metrics endpoint the context is reasonably self-contained.

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