get_project_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not mention return format, permissions, error behavior, or any side effects. The description focuses on value proposition rather than operational details.

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?

A single sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. The trailing clause 'analytics Trello lacks' adds some contextual value but is slightly non-essential. Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides minimal return content (completion %, totals) but lacks enough context to fully guide an agent. It does not address usage distinctions from related metric tools or operational edge cases, making it barely adequate for a simple read 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It references project_id indirectly as 'a project's metrics' but does not explain the ID format, constraints, or how metrics relate to the parameter. The description mostly mentions output content rather than input semantics.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'a project's metrics', specifying content '(completion %, totals)'. It distinguishes from sibling metric tools like get_milestone_metrics and get_board_metrics by scoping explicitly to project-level metrics.

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 phrase 'analytics Trello lacks' implies the tool fills a gap for analytics unavailable in Trello, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or name sibling metric tools. Usage guidance is mostly implied, not explicit.

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