yaaif_agent_spec_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Query' implies a read operation, but the description does not mention time-windowing behavior, aggregation, result limits, permissions, or what the returned telemetry looks like. The parenthetical '(sessions, tokens, tools)' adds only minor context about metric categories.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices useful behavioral and parameter detail. As a conciseness measure, this is strong.

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 annotations, no output schema, and only 2 loosely explained parameters, the description should clarify what data is returned and what spec_id and hours mean. It does neither. An agent would likely need to inspect sibling tools or examples to use this correctly, so the description is incomplete for this tool's complexity.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the two parameters. spec_id can be loosely inferred as the Scenario identifier from the description and parameter name, but hours is completely unexplained: no units, default, range, or meaning. The description adds no real semantic value beyond what the bare parameter names suggest.

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 names a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('telemetry metrics attributed to a Scenario') with the metric categories listed in parentheses. This distinguishes it from obvious CRUD siblings like yaaif_agent_spec_get/update/delete, though 'Scenario' is left as a domain term without definition. It is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool does, but not fully differentiated from other telemetry/metrics siblings.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus related tools such as yaaif_ops_telemetry, yaaif_agent_spec_rollout_metrics, or yaaif_telemetry_get. The description implies this is for scenario-attributed metrics, but it provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent choose between alternatives.

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