Get metrics

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

Annotations already mark it read-only. The description adds context about the work log source and the pricing config override, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose error behavior, data freshness, or any limits, so only moderate additional 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?

Single sentence with front-loaded purpose and a parenthetical for important config detail. No wasted words, though the list of metrics could be slightly streamlined. Efficient but dense.

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 no output schema, the description adequately lists what the snapshot contains (counts, completions, velocity details). However, missing parameter explanation and lack of structural detail (e.g., JSON keys) leave gaps for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does not describe what 'project' is or any constraints. The only indirect reference is 'project config' in a note about pricing, which is insufficient for an agent to know how to populate the required parameter.

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 it provides a read-only snapshot of feature/bug counts by status, completions by date, and velocity metrics. The verb and resource are implied but specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like get_work_log or get_sprint_report, which might overlap.

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 guidance on when to use this over alternatives. Does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or context like needing a project ID. The only hint is the config override note, but that's about behavior, not usage.

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