get-carbon-metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states 'Retrieve', implying read-only, but does not disclose idempotency, rate limits, or data freshness. No details about what 'cluster-wide' means or if the tool has side effects.

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 sentence of 8 words, with no filler. Every word is meaningful and directly conveys the tool's purpose. It is optimally concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description should at least hint at the kind of metrics returned (e.g., CO2, cost). It says 'environmental and financial impact metrics' but is vague. It lacks details about scope like cluster identification or time range, making it somewhat incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's output without additional context.

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 zero parameters, so the input schema already covers everything. The description does not need to add parameter details, and adding extra context would be redundant. A score of 4 is appropriate as the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 tool retrieves cluster-wide environmental and financial impact metrics. It uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('carbon-metrics'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get-waste-profiles' or 'get-impact-story' by focusing on carbon metrics.

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. There are no mentions of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. The description lacks any comparative context with siblings.

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