cja_list_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists all metrics and returns a dictionary with a list and total count. However, it does not mention any behavioral traits such as data view restrictions, authorization needs, or performance implications. The description provides basic but incomplete behavioral 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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, separate Args and Returns sections, and example queries. It is informative without being overly verbose. Minor redundancy exists in repeating 'metrics' in examples, but overall it is concise 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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, return format, and usage examples. It lacks details on expansion values, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is largely complete and useful.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining that dataview_id is optional and uses a configured default, and that expansion allows additional fields. However, it does not specify what values expansion can take or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity. This is adequate but not excellent.

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 'List all available metrics in the CJA data view', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cja_list_dimensions and cja_list_segments by focusing on metrics, and provides examples of metrics (visits, page views, revenue) that clarify the tool's scope.

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 includes example queries like 'What metrics can I measure?' which imply when to use, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct alternatives. While the sibling list clarifies alternatives, the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance or conditions.

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