Value Metrics

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the metric categories (ROI, productivity, graph health) but does not disclose other behavioral details like return format or data granularity. This aligns with the annotations with no contradiction.

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, concise sentence that leads with the action verb 'Retrieve'. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for what it returns. However, it does not describe the return format or aggregation details, which could be useful given the absence of an output schema. Overall, it is adequately complete for a straightforward read-only metrics tool.

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 100% for the sole optional parameter 'project', so the schema adequately documents it. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond reinforcing that metrics are 'for a project', resulting in no meaningful value added over the schema.

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 with a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a defined resource ('ROI and productivity health metrics'), and scope ('for a project'). It also provides concrete examples (estimated time and tokens saved, graph health) that help distinguish it from sibling metric tools like velocity_analytics or get_project_summary.

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 implies a clear usage context: when you need ROI and productivity health metrics for a project. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide when to select it.

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