list_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if the compartment_id is invalid. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the return description could be more specific (e.g., what fields are included). No wasted sentences, but minor room for improvement in brevity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose and parameters adequately but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and return format specifics. For a simple list tool, it's minimally viable but incomplete for robust agent usage without additional context.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'compartment_id' is an OCID and 'namespace' is optional for filtering, with examples like 'oci_computeagent'. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints for OCIDs.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('available metrics in a compartment'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'query_metric_data' by focusing on listing available metrics rather than querying metric data, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction.

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 like 'query_metric_data' or other list tools. The description mentions optional namespace filtering but doesn't explain when this filtering is appropriate or what the tool's scope is relative to siblings.

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