get_job_metrics_for_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It uses 'Get' and 'Retrieves,' indicating a read-only operation, and adds context about providing performance and execution statistics. However, it does not detail limitations, error conditions, or whether any side effects exist. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a brief elaboration. It is concise with no fluff, though the second sentence somewhat repeats the first. This is efficient and well-structured.

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 only one parameter, a clear description, and an output schema provided, the description covers the essential context. It explains what the tool does and how it filters. Given the tool's simplicity, the lack of additional details about return values or edge cases is acceptable, but there is slight room for more specificity about the metrics content.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name' with a description. The tool description restates the filtering by workflow name but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('job metrics'), and scope ('for the specified workflow'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_job_metrics by explicitly mentioning filtering by workflow name, making it clear this is a scoped variant.

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 for when to use this tool: when you need job metrics for a specific workflow. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the filtering by workflow name implies the appropriate scenario. This is more than a vague implication, so it earns a 4.

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