verdonz_list_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 that results are access-scoped to the calling identity, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about pagination, default/max result counts, ordering, or what fields a governed metric definition contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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, no annotations, and two of three parameters undocumented, the description is too thin for the agent to call this correctly. It should at minimum cover paging defaults, what search matches, and the shape of a returned metric definition.

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 description coverage is only 33% — datasetId is documented in the schema while limit and search are bare. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap and leaves the agent guessing at search semantics and paging behavior.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and a specific resource (governed metric definitions) with a scope qualifier (what the identity can access). It is distinguishable from verdonz_get_metric by the plural-list framing, though it never names the sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as verdonz_get_metric for single lookups or verdonz_list_datasets for the datasource catalogue. The 'identity can access' clause hints at permission scoping but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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