Get metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the metric scope and time-range framing but says nothing about return format, granularity, or rate limits, leaving it adequate rather than rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the triggering condition and no wasted words. It could be marginally tighter but is 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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema and thin parameter documentation, the description explains what it fetches and over what window but omits what the response contains and how project/service resolve. Sufficient to invoke, but not fully self-contained.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description should carry more weight. It does hint at the time-range concept and the app-vs-addon distinction (mapping loosely to project/service), but it doesn't clarify the range enum values, the default, or the required project parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (get metrics) and resource (CPU, memory, network metrics) scoped to a Lizard app or addon over a time range. This clearly separates it from siblings like logs_tail or service_show, though it doesn't explicitly name a competing tool.

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 'Use this when the user wants...' phrasing gives a clear triggering condition tied to metric types and time range. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use logs_tail instead), so it lacks full routing guidance.

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