Fetch per-item gate metrics as rows in Weapon Lab format, listing subject, scene, metric, and value for a specified folder and subject.
The metrics as rows for a gate (Weapon Lab's row format): subject, scene, metric, value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | Yes | ||
| subject | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and no output schema exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only partially meets it by naming four row columns. It says nothing about whether this is a read or write, permissions, errors on missing folder/subject, or pagination.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally fine, but the brevity is under-specification rather than discipline — the sentence is too short for a tool with two required, undocumented parameters.
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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain inputs and behavior, but it explains neither. The 'Weapon Lab row format' reference is unexplained jargon an agent cannot act on.
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 0% with two required parameters (folder and subject), and the description never explains what either accepts. The bare word 'subject' appears only inside the row-format list, not as parameter guidance, so the agent gets no semantic help for its two mandatory inputs.
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 names a specific resource ('metrics as rows for a gate') and hints at the row shape, so the agent knows roughly what is produced, but it is a noun phrase with no verb and never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_metrics or judge_folder. It reads more like an output-format note than a statement of what the tool does.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over list_metrics or judge_folder. An agent must guess from the name alone which sibling to call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.