get_project_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, required permissions, or data freshness. It only states what it does, not how it behaves (e.g., side effects, rate limits). The agent cannot infer safety or performance characteristics.

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 concise with a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action. However, it could be more informative without adding length, e.g., by clarifying the exact metrics included.

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 description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter, but given the lack of output schema, it would benefit from specifying the structure or examples of returned metrics. It meets minimal completeness but leaves room for ambiguity.

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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The only parameter, projectId, is simply a number; the description does not explain what constitutes a valid projectId or how to obtain one, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 retrieves 'progress and burndown metrics' for a project, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_milestone_metrics or get_board_metrics, leaving ambiguity about scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_milestone_metrics or get_board_metrics. The context signals show many similar get_metrics tools, but the description offers no exclusions or comparative advice.

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