list-active-metrics

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 discloses the action but not behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, rate limits, or what 'active' means precisely. For example, it does not indicate whether the tool returns metric names or full objects, or if results are sorted.

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 that efficiently communicates the essential information. Every word contributes to the purpose, and it is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary content.

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 tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate for listing the purpose but leaves gaps. It does not mention the output format (e.g., list of metric names or IDs) or any ordering. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description could be more complete regarding the return value.

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 describes all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minimal value by summarizing the optional filters, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 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 states the action ('List'), the resource ('active metrics'), and the constraints ('from a given time, optionally filtered by host or tag'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like list-hosts or list-metrics by specifying 'active', which implies a temporal filter. This provides a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 usage when needing to retrieve active metrics from a certain time with optional filters, but it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like list-metrics or get-metrics. Without guidance on alternatives, the agent may not differentiate when to use this tool over others.

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