get_tool_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are grouped by ok/error, omitting session_id aggregates across sessions, and non-owners only see their own sessions while the owner sees everyone's.

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 compact and well-structured: core purpose first, then usage guidance, ownership caveat, and parameter detail. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter read-only metrics tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use an alternative, ownership scoping, and parameter semantics. Nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the only parameter, session_id: omit for the aggregate across all sessions, or pass an id for just that session. This is exactly the semantic information an agent needs.

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: it returns tool-call counts grouped by status (ok/error) for one session or aggregated. It distinguishes itself from get_agent_trace by framing itself as a summary rather than an ordered call list.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool for a quick success/failure summary and to use get_agent_trace for the ordered call list. It also gives clear direction on omitting versus passing session_id, plus an ownership-based visibility caveat.

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