list_metrics

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish the safety and openness profile. The description adds some scope context by saying the metrics are daily and usable by specific sibling tools, but it does not explain auth needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond that.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted language. It is somewhat telegraphic and lacks an explicit action verb, but it remains compact and front-loads the core resource.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description gives enough context to know it concerns daily metrics used by timeseries, chart, and dashboard_data. It could be more complete by explicitly stating 'call this to discover available metric names,' but no critical information is missing.

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 there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not introduce anything misleading about 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 identifies the resource as daily metrics and ties them to timeseries, chart, and dashboard_data, so an agent can infer this is a listing tool for available metrics. However, it does not use an explicit verb and does not clearly distinguish itself from the related sibling tools it names.

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 phrase 'available to timeseries, chart and dashboard_data' implies the tool should be used when discovering metrics for those tools. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no direct comparison to alternative siblings such as daily or timeseries.

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