metrics_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses source logs (report.json and HANDOFF.md), that nothing is recorded elsewhere, nothing leaves the machine, and that no compared ranking is produced. It strongly implies a read-only local operation but does not explicitly state permissions or failure behavior.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the metrics list and constraints. It is slightly verbose with defensive disclaimers that repeat the non-evaluation point, but every sentence still serves a clarifying or behavioral role.

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 simple one-parameter report tool with no output schema, the description names the metrics returned, the source logs, the time window, and local/no-comparison constraints. It does not describe output format or units, but that gap is minor for a descriptive telemetry 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 100%, and the sole optional days parameter is fully documented with bounds and default. The description only echoes 'across a window of days' and adds no syntax, default, or constraint details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states descriptive telemetry metrics derived from run logs over a window of days, and distinguishes itself from evaluation, benchmark, and baseline uses. Sibling differentiation is implicit through exclusions rather than naming a specific alternative tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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?

States 'DESCRIPTIVE TELEMETRY ONLY' and 'not an evaluation, benchmark or baseline' as exclusions, and frames the tool as a zero-cost substitute for a cut evaluation direction. However, it never names sibling tools such as verdict_stats or spend_report, nor does it give conditions for choosing between them.

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