get_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't clarify whether this is a safe/polling operation, what the response shape is, or any error conditions. There is no mention of what 'metrics' specifically includes or how progress is represented.

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 clear sentence with no filler. It's appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter read tool. It doesn't waste words but doesn't add substantial value beyond the title itself.

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?

The tool has only 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. Given this simplicity, a minimal description is partially acceptable. However, the lack of output schema means the description should explain what metrics/progress data the agent can expect, and the ambiguity with 'get_execution_metrics' sibling suggests more context is needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single parameter 'executionId' is already described in the schema as 'ID of the workflow execution'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per the baseline rule, 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents the parameters.

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 states 'Get execution metrics and progress information' which is reasonably specific (verb 'get' + resource 'execution metrics'). However, it's partially redundant with the sibling tool 'get_execution_metrics' which has a near-identical name and likely purpose, creating ambiguity about which tool to choose. The description doesn't distinguish it from that sibling.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Crucially, there is a sibling tool named 'get_execution_metrics' which appears to have an identical or overlapping purpose, yet the description offers no differentiation or exclusion criteria. There is also no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., whether an execution must be running first).

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