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 states the action ('List all available metrics') but lacks behavioral details such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what 'available' entails (e.g., filtered by access). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List all available metrics') and includes essential context ('from the sol_metrics InfluxDB database'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a simple listing tool. However, with no annotations and no output details, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., response format, error handling). It's adequate but has clear gaps, making it a minimum viable description.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 ('List') and resource ('all available metrics'), specifying the source ('from the sol_metrics InfluxDB database'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_metrics' (analysis vs listing) and 'generate_dashboard' (creation vs listing), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'search_rust_code' (different domain), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'list_metrics' over 'analyze_metrics' or 'search_rust_code', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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