get_endpoint_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. It only mentions the Prometheus source and metric name, but omits details like aggregation semantics, pagination, limits, or whether results are raw or summarized. No side effects or prerequisites are mentioned.

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 with a clear tag indicating the data source. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids unnecessary fluff. Could be slightly more structured but remains efficient.

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 tool with no output schema and only a high-level description, the agent lacks clarity on what 'endpoint' means (e.g., path, method), how metrics are aggregated, or how to interpret latency percentiles. The description is too sparse to fully guide correct invocation and interpretation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameters; it only describes the output. The schema already explains service and window, and namespace references list_namespaces. No additional value is added by the description.

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 provides per-endpoint request rate, error rate, and latency, with the metric source (http.server.requests). This is specific and distinguishes it from outbound or frontend metrics, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_golden_signals or query_metrics.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_metrics or get_golden_signals. There are no exclusions or context hints about typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer suitability.

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