get-rum-metric

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling for missing metrics, rate limits, or any side effects. This is minimal and insufficient for transparency.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not describe what the tool returns (the metric definition) or mention any potential edge cases. However, for a basic retrieval, it meets the minimum viable standard.

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 covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description. The description adds value by providing an example value 'rum.my_custom_count', which helps the agent understand the expected format beyond the schema alone.

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 'specific rum-based metric definition', and specifies retrieval 'by name', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list-rum-metrics' or other 'get-*' tools for different metric types.

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 implies single-item retrieval by name, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like 'list-rum-metrics' for listing all metrics, though the context is sufficient for an agent to infer the correct usage.

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