sassy_observability_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'returns' data, implying a read operation, but it does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or what 'real-time' means. This is minimal transparency, falling short of the expectations for an unannotated tool.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, earning a 5.

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?

Despite its simplicity, the description is vague about what metrics are included, the return format, and any configuration dependencies. Since there is no output schema, the description should ideally provide more details about the return value, but it only offers a high-level phrase. This leaves it incomplete for practical use.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and there is nothing to explain. Per the rubric, zero parameters warrant a baseline of 4, and the description adds no parameter details because none are needed.

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 'Return' and a clear resource ('real-time server metrics and performance data'), which conveys the tool's function accurately. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling observability tools like sassy_observability_health or sassy_observability_tool_stats, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. There is no context about typical use cases or prerequisites, so it earns a 2.

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