Metrics (admin)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses little: it does not state whether values are cumulative counters, instantaneous gauges, or time series, whether any time window applies, or that the tool is a read-only snapshot. Listing the metric families is modest useful context but not behavioral detail.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but it is not a well-formed front-loaded statement of purpose; the metric list leads without any framing verb or scope, so the reader must reconstruct intent from the name.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description must convey what comes back and in what shape. It names metric families but does not describe the return structure, aggregation window, or units, leaving key questions unanswered for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. Notably absent is any mention that results cannot be filtered by time range or metric name, which an agent might otherwise assume.

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 lists the metric families returned (tool latency, generation latency, API failures, moderation decisions, cost), which identifies the resource beyond the bare name. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb and no differentiation from siblings like get_cost_report or get_health, which plausibly overlap with the 'cost' and health-adjacent metrics listed.

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 when-to-use guidance is given: it does not say whether this is for diagnostics, dashboards, or monitoring, nor when to prefer get_cost_report or get_trend instead. The only implied usage comes from the metric names themselves, which an agent must infer.

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