Get metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope detail such as 'Lizard app or addon' and 'time range,' but it does not disclose return format or explain the 'live metrics' nuance beyond the schema. This is adequate but not 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 sentence that front-loads the use case and includes only essential information. No wasted or redundant wording.

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?

This is a simple read-only metrics tool with rich annotations and an enum for range. The description plus schema gives an agent enough to select and call it correctly. The lack of an output schema means the response shape is not described, but that is a minor gap for a metrics-getting tool.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. The phrase 'app or addon' maps to the service parameter and 'over a time range' maps to range, but the required project parameter is not described in either the schema or the description. The range enum and service description in the schema carry part of the load.

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 names exactly what the tool does: retrieve CPU, memory, or network metrics for a Lizard app or addon over a time range. It is specific about both the resource type and the metric domains, and no sibling tool overlaps with this purpose.

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 description explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants CPU, memory, or network metrics,' giving a clear trigger condition. It does not list alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but no sibling tool provides metrics, so this is sufficient context.

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