calc_list_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without noting that it is read-only, non-destructive, or any limitations like response size. The 'COMPUTE.' prefix is unclear and adds no transparency.

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 and front-loaded with the primary verb 'List'. However, the 'COMPUTE.' prefix is cryptic and could be removed without loss of meaning, slightly reducing structure quality.

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?

As a simple, parameterless list tool, the description gives the core function but lacks any explanation of the return format or how the output relates to the sibling calc_* tools. No output schema exists, so the description should clarify what 'metrics + schemas' means in practice; it does not.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed since the input schema is empty and the action is parameterless.

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 the tool lists supported metrics and schemas, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from calc_metric (which computes) and list_capabilities (which is broader), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description is a bare command with no context for selection, such as 'use this to discover available metrics' or exclusions for list_capabilities.

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