Get Delivery 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 names the metrics and frames them as DORA-inspired, which tells the agent what kind of output to expect. However, it does not state whether the operation is strictly read-only, how metrics are calculated, or whether the output is a snapshot versus a trend series.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The metric list is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a clear usage purpose. Every part earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists the returned metric concepts, which is helpful. It is not fully complete because it leaves ambiguity about whether the result is a single snapshot or a historical trend, and it does not define 'performance tier' or 'flow efficiency' beyond the label.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It only vaguely echoes the 'project' parameter without adding meaning beyond the schema, such as how days affects the computed metrics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies a specific resource: delivery metrics for a project, and enumerates the exact metrics (throughput, lead time, flow efficiency, performance tier). It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like get_project_status or get_project_summary, so it falls short of 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 phrase 'Use to understand delivery health and trends' gives a clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the stated purpose is explicit enough to guide selection among sibling tools.

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