yaaif_agent_spec_rollout_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. The verb 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, which is helpful, but there is no mention of scoping (e.g., which agent spec or rollout), output format, or any required state (e.g., needing an active rollout). The five metric names hint at output content but not at any behavioral caveats.

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 that leads with the action verb and resource, then enumerates the metric types in a compact series. Every word adds value and there is zero filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core functionality but leaves gaps: it doesn't clarify whether the metrics are global or scoped to a specific agent spec, what form the output takes (JSON structure, aggregation, time range), or any caveats about data freshness. These are not severe, but an agent could call it with incorrect assumptions about scope.

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 oz, so the baseline is 4 per rubric. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema details because there is nothing to invoke with. It accurately implies the tool takes no arguments by having no parameter discussion and an empty schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies a clear resource ('observe/warn/require rollout metrics') followed by five concrete metric categories. This is more specific than a tautology, but it doesn't contrast with sibling tools like yaaif_agent_spec_metrics or yaaif_agent_spec_coverage, so it relies on the name to carry differentiation.

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 provided on when to use this tool over any of the ~200 siblings. It does not mention alternative tools, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. The description only states what it reads, leaving an agent to guess whether this is the right tool for a given intent.

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