mcp_engram_process_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions producing wildcards and graph edges but does not state if the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or any rate limits. This is insufficient for the AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 one sentence, but it uses domain jargon ('WS-3', 'sheaf TOML', 'wildcards + realized_by graph edges') that may be opaque. While not verbose, it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or any additional context needed to use the tool effectively.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's definition of process_key as a process:engram.* key. The mention of 'per-process fulfillment metrics' slightly reinforces the parameter's role, but no additional meaning.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: per-process fulfillment metrics from sheaf TOML, producing wildcards and realized_by graph edges. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are mostly other engram operations (recall, forget, stats). However, 'WS-3' is cryptic and 'sheaf TOML' may be unclear, reducing clarity.

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 tool versus alternatives like mcp_engram_stats or other metrics-related tools. No exclusions or context is provided, leaving the agent without decision support.

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