get_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that results are keyed by scope name and that a failed scope returns an error string without failing the whole call. It does not explicitly state side effects or permission requirements, but 'get' plus the error behavior gives adequate 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 front-loaded with the purpose and then uses a compact bullet list that maps each scope to its meaning. Every sentence earns its place, and the final behavior note is important rather than filler.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter, an output schema, and the description covers defaults, scope semantics, result keying, and partial failure behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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?

Although the input schema already enumerates valid scopes, the description adds genuine semantics by explaining what each scope returns, e.g., 'pools: session and machine counts per desktop pool' and 'system: CPU and memory metrics'. This materially helps an agent choose the right scope values.

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 identifies the action ('Get performance and capacity metrics') and the resource ('across the Horizon environment in a single call'). The enumerated scopes make it immediately distinguishable from per-resource siblings like get_machine or get_desktop_pool.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: collecting metrics across multiple scope types in one call. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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