Get Traces Dashboard Metrics

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds aggregation scope and metric types, but it does not disclose response structure, default time windows, or pagination, which would add further context.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch' and the resource, lists key metrics and notes optional filtering. No redundant words or filler.

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 read-only aggregation tool with optional filters, the description covers purpose and metric scope, sufficient for basic selection. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and response format details, given there is no output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all six filter parameters. The description adds only that filtering is optional, providing minimal additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 fetches aggregate dashboard metrics, enumerating the metric types (credits, traces, spans, tokens, latency, error rate). This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from trace-listing tools by emphasizing aggregation.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. 'Optionally filtered' implies flexible usage, but the description does not tell the agent when to prefer this over related tools like lyzr_list_traces or lyzr_ops_get_dashboard.

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