get_analysis_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states what metrics are reported but does not say whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether sampling is continuous or point-in-time, or how the bounded samples are scoped.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that names the operation and enumerates the returned metric categories without filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-argument reporting tool, though the phrase "bounded engine latency samples" is somewhat jargon-heavy.

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 the description need not explain return values, and the zero-parameter schema requires no parameter documentation. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description is only minimally complete for an agent deciding when and why to call this metrics 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no argument semantics to explain and the schema is trivially complete. The description appropriately does not introduce parameter details, matching the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ("Report") and lists the exact metric categories it returns: engine latency samples, queue delays, cache hits, and reserved interactive capacity. It does not, however, distinguish this metrics tool from sibling analysis tools such as get_analysis_job or get_progressive_analysis, so an agent must infer the intended monitoring context.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions for selecting this tool over the many sibling analysis tools. An agent is left to infer that this is for observing analysis engine metrics rather than running or inspecting analysis jobs.

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