get_application_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'available metrics' includes (e.g., list, schema). This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and potential complexity.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get available metrics'), making it easy to parse. Every word contributes directly to the purpose, achieving optimal conciseness for such a brief statement.

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 tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, parameters, and behavior, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool invocation.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'an application' (hinting at 'app_id') but doesn't explain 'names' (e.g., whether it filters metrics by name). It adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural information, failing to compensate for the coverage 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'available metrics for an application', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_application_metric_data' (which likely retrieves actual metric values) by focusing on available metrics. However, it could be more specific about what 'available metrics' entails (e.g., metadata, types, or definitions).

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_application_metric_data' (for metric data) or 'get_application' (for general app info), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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