list_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Summarise') and limits scope to 'historical' data, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, potential rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The description is too minimal to provide meaningful 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 a single, concise sentence that states the purpose without any filler words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a simple list/summary tool. It conveys the core function and scope (historical exercise metrics and readiness trends). However, it could be improved by mentioning what the output looks like or any limitations, but for its simplicity, it covers the essentials.

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 schema already covers everything. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description's mention of 'historical' and 'readiness trends' gives some context but does not conflict with the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Summarise') and identifies clear resources ('historical exercise metrics and readiness trends'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_network or simulate_attack by focusing on metrics summarization rather than analysis or simulation. However, it lacks the precision of examples like 'List ALL calls in date range' because it does not specify the exact scope or output format.

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. The description merely states what it does, without any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions, nor does it mention alternative tools for different scenarios.

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