get_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return structure (values with history and latest), data timezone, lossless number preservation, and defaults. It also references shared time-selection behavior. While it doesn't discuss permissions or rate limits, it provides substantive behavioral context beyond a minimal statement, so a 4 is warranted.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value: query type, defaults, return format, time behavior, and data precision. There is no redundancy or filler. It is an appropriately sized and well-structured description.

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?

Given the high complexity (15 parameters, no annotations), the description is only partially complete. It covers the core output and time behavior, and an output schema exists to document returns. However, it does not explain the majority of filter/dimension parameters, nor does it provide an example or detailed drilldown semantics. This is adequate but leaves clear gaps, so a 3 is appropriate.

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%, so the description must compensate for 15 parameters. It only explains defaults for `metric` and `timer` and mentions `date_comparator` by name. Other parameters like `app`, `browser`, `country`, `percentile`, and `custom_timer` are left completely undocumented, leaving the agent with insufficient information to set them correctly.

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-resource pair: 'Multiple timers/metrics by minute over time.' It further specifies the mPulse query-type, defaults, and return shape, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_summary or get_histogram, which are likely aggregate or distribution tools. The phrase 'by minute over time' captures the tool's unique time-series focus.

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 clear context: it returns per-minute time series data for multiple timers/metrics, and notes that time selection/drilldowns behave like other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. This is 'clear context, no exclusions,' which fits a 4.

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