hcloud_get_server_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the time-window and step defaults, which is real context, but says nothing about return format, units, or how 'hand-tuned' output differs from the raw variant.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the resource type and access pattern come first. Slightly terse for a 6-parameter tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and a third of parameters undocumented, the agent is left guessing at the shape of the returned metrics series and how start/end override the default window. Adequate for selecting the tool, incomplete for invoking it confidently.

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 only 33%, so the description has to carry weight: it does clarify the id/name alternation and the 1-hour/60s defaults. However, it doesn't explain step semantics beyond the default, nor the interaction between start/end and the default window, leaving several parameters under-documented.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (server metrics) and narrows it to cpu/disk/network. The 'Hand-tuned wrapper' note implicitly distinguishes it from hcloud_get_server_metrics_raw, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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?

Explains that id OR name is accepted and what the defaults are, which is genuinely useful usage context. It never says when to prefer this over hcloud_get_server_metrics_raw or what 'hand-tuned' means in practice, so the alternative routing is only implied.

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