get_instance_metrics

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the metric source (CloudWatch) but does not reveal whether this is a read-only operation, how metrics are aggregated, whether results are time-bounded, or any rate limits. The word 'fixed' is ambiguous and not explained.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action and resource. However, the term 'fixed' could be clearer, slightly reducing the overall conciseness benefit due to ambiguity.

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?

Given there is no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context about what metrics are returned, how the 'minutes' parameter influences results, and any limitations. The current one-liner is insufficient for an agent to invoke this tool reliably without further guesswork.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (instance_name, minutes) with no descriptions, and the tool description does not mention them at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the agent is left with no clue about what these parameters mean or how they affect the call, making this a severe gap.

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 action (Get) and the resource (EC2 performance and status metrics) with a specific source (CloudWatch). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on health, errors, service status, or journal, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., get_instance_health, get_recent_errors). The description does not mention exclusions, alternatives, or conditions that would help an agent choose correctly.

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