get_isp_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that this is the 'simple, unfiltered variant,' meaning no console/site/time-window filtering, which is a meaningful behavior trait. It also discloses the return shape ('dict with a 'periods' list containing...'). While it does not detail error cases or exact formatting, it gives enough behavioral context for a safe read operation. A 4 is appropriate given the description's clarity, though a bit more on constraints or response details could push it to 5.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence states the resource and metrics; the second explains the filtering scope and names the alternative; the third defines the parameter; the fourth summarizes the return shape. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter metrics tool with no annotations, the description covers the domain (WAN health), the exact metric categories, the interval format, the distinction from the sibling, and the return structure. The output schema exists, so detailed return fields don't need to be enumerated. Everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly is present.

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 input schema has zero description coverage (0%), so the description must compensate. The description explains the interval param as 'time bucket for metrics aggregation — '5m' or '1h',' adding concrete allowed values and semantics not present in the schema. This fully compensates for the schema gap, and the description of the return structure adds useful context. A 4 is warranted because the parameter explanation is clear and complete for a single-param tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get WAN health metrics (speed, latency, packet loss, uptime).' It clearly states what the tool does and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling query_isp_metrics by naming it as the scoped variant. An agent can immediately understand this tool's purpose and how it differs from its nearest alternative.

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 explicitly states when to use this variant ('simple, unfiltered variant (interval only)') and directs the agent to use query_isp_metrics when scoping by console/site or a time window is needed. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative tool, leaving no ambiguity.

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