get_app_metrics

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, time-range bounds, or metric granularity/resolution. 'Get' implies a read, but that is inference rather than disclosure.

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?

One-sentence summary up front followed by a compact Args block; no filler. The docstring scaffolding is slightly redundant for a structured schema, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and all four params are explained. However, for a metrics query tool amid many sibling metric/trace tools, missing valid metric enumeration and sibling routing leaves an agent guessing about scope.

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 0% and the schema titles are nearly meaningless ('From', 'To'), but the description defines all four parameters: app_id as a Scout APM application ID, metric with concrete examples, and from_/to as ISO 8601 datetimes. It stops short of enumerating the valid metric set or stating timezone assumptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get individual metric data for a specific application.' This implicitly separates it from endpoint/job-level metric siblings, but it never names those alternatives or explains the scope distinction explicitly.

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 on when to use this instead of get_endpoint_metrics, get_job_metrics, or get_app_insights. The only hint is an 'e.g.' list of two metric names, which is a parameter example rather than a usage rule.

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