Get Synergy Metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as computation cost, data freshness, or dependencies, and simply lists the output fields without disclosing any behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 with no filler. It directly states the main action and resource, and every word (the list of metrics) adds useful information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple read-only metrics tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explicitly lists the metrics returned, which helps the agent understand the result structure, and the read-only behavior is covered by annotations. The only minor gap is the unexplained term 'dual-memory', but this is not critical for usage.

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 one optional parameter 'project' with a description, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds no further meaning beyond the schema's existing description, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get combined dual-memory metrics' and enumerates the exact metrics returned (token savings, UI task verification ratio, visual blocker health). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like value_metrics or get_cognitive_load, which likely target different metric sets.

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 does not mention use cases, exclusions, or contexts where a different metrics tool would be more appropriate, offering no comparative direction to the agent.

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