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. 'Read real metrics' implies a non-mutating operation, but it offers no details about output format, filtering behavior beyond the schema, or any caveats about data freshness or access.

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 that states the core action and resource without any filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool with two optional parameters.

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 is relatively simple with only two optional parameters and no output schema, so a one-sentence description is nearly sufficient. However, in the context of seven sibling tools, the lack of any usage context or clarification of what 'real metrics' means leaves a gap in completeness.

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%, with parameters 'task' and 'limit' already documented as filtering and limiting results. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the input schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read') and identifies the resource ('metrics database'), clearly indicating this is a read operation for metrics. It distinguishes itself from mutation tools like inject and orchestrate, though it does not explicitly contrast with read-like siblings such as status or logs.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like status or logs. The description only states what it does, not the context in which it should be selected.

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