get_metrics_framework

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it returns structure and examples, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond annotations. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise (2-3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: identifies frameworks, states return contents, gives usage examples.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. No gaps are evident for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (id and search). The description lists id values in text, but this largely duplicates the schema. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a product-metrics framework, enumerates specific frameworks (HEART, AARRR, etc.), and describes what is returned (structure, when-to-use, pitfalls, examples). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_principles or get_business_strategy by focusing on metrics frameworks.

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 explicit usage cues: 'Use when the user asks "how should we measure success?" or "what metrics should we track?"'. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings, which would improve guidance.

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