list_metrics

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

The description mentions pagination and filtering but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the result includes full metric objects or summaries, pagination limits, or what happens when no metrics match. With no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 short and front-loaded but is too terse. It sacrifices detail for brevity and could be expanded to cover more behavioral aspects without becoming verbose.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain return values, how pagination works, or what filtering options are available, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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% (no descriptions beyond titles). The description vaguely mentions 'pagination and filtering' but does not explain what 'fields', 'service', or 'include_deleted' mean. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action 'List metrics' and the data source 'OpenMetadata', with mention of pagination and filtering. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other list tools like list_tables or list_dashboards, which share similar patterns.

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 versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when pagination/filtering are needed.

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