get_server_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists the metrics returned but does not explain whether retrieval is expensive, if counters are reset (despite a 'reset' parameter in schema), or any side effects. The tool's behavior beyond basic retrieval is unclear.

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, front-loaded sentence of 20 words covering the key purpose and metrics. Every word adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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 the lack of output schema and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format beyond listing metrics, nor does it describe parameters like 'filter' or 'reset'. An agent would need to infer or experiment to understand behavior fully.

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 100% description coverage for its three parameters (filter, format, reset), but the tool description adds no additional meaning. It does not connect the listed metrics to the 'filter' parameter or explain the 'reset' behavior. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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's purpose: retrieving Terragrunt MCP server metrics including cache hit rates, invocation counts, response times, and memory usage for observability. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like build_config or diagnose_terragrunt_error by focusing on server performance data.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios to avoid. The phrase 'for observability' implies context but lacks actionable direction.

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