get_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further and discloses non-obvious behavior: results are keyed by scope name, and a failed scope returns its error as a string rather than failing the whole call. That partial-failure contract is exactly the kind of runtime behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a scannable scope list and two closing sentences on result shape and failure handling. No filler or redundancy; each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be restated. The description covers scope semantics, keying of results, and error behavior, giving the agent everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret partial results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the enum values themselves are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds genuine meaning by explaining what each scope actually measures (e.g., 'system: CPU and memory metrics for connection servers'), which enriches selection of scope values beyond the bare enum.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get performance and capacity metrics') and enumerates exactly what each scope returns (pool counts, session totals, machine states, CPU/memory, RDS states, license usage). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings that also surface health/state data such as get_infrastructure_health or get_connection_server_health, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumeration of scopes and the 'in a single call' framing, which signals an aggregate/multi-metric use case. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., why pick this over get_connection_server_health). Guidance is inferable but not stated.

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