get-rum-metric

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds no further behavioral insights (e.g., side effects, rate limits) beyond restating 'by name'. Given annotation coverage, the description meets minimum transparency but does not enhance it.

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 a single 8-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No extraneous information; every word is necessary.

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 no output schema, the description could provide more context about what a 'definition' includes (e.g., properties, metadata). However, given the tool's simplicity (1 param, read-only), the description is minimally sufficient but leaves the agent guessing about the response structure.

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%, with a clear description and example for the 'metricId' parameter. The description merely restates 'by name', adding no semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'rum-based metric definition', specifying retrieval by name. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'list-rum-metrics' (which returns multiple) and 'get-metrics' (more general), though it does not explicitly distinguish from 'get-metric-metadata'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-rum-metrics' or 'get-metrics'. The description implies use when the metric name is known, but provides no context about prerequisites or scenarios where other tools are preferable.

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