chatwoot_get_captain_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds metric scope but does not disclose deeper behavioral traits such as period semantics, output behavior, or rate limits. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a compact Args section. Every sentence is short, though the arg descriptions are terse and some are tautological.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. However, given the large set of similar captain metric siblings, the lack of any distinction or usage context leaves the overall definition only minimally complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives a useful hint for assistant_id by pointing to chatwoot_list_captain_assistants, but period is only described as 'Analysis period' and output_format as 'Output format', which adds little meaning beyond the parameter names. The schema enums are not explained.

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 the tool 'Returns performance metrics for a Captain (AI) assistant' and names specific metric categories like autonomous resolution rate, handoffs, and FAQ usage. It is distinct enough from general chatwoot metric tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling Captain tools such as chatwoot_get_captain_overview or chatwoot_get_captain_resolution_trend.

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 only usage-related guidance is the assistant_id arg hint to use chatwoot_list_captain_assistants. The description gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over the many sibling captain-specific tools, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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