manage_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, yet the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or parameter behavior (e.g., what happens if project_key is missing). The description is too brief to inform the agent about the tool's operation beyond its basic function.

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 two sentences but the second sentence largely restates the first. It is short but not optimally concise, and the structure is adequate.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, error handling, and parameter dependencies. It lacks completeness for a tool with three parameters and no additional documentation.

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 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description repeats the action value but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters well.

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?

Description states 'Get issue lifecycle metrics for dashboards and visualizations' with a clear verb and resource, and names the specific action 'get_metrics'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the resource 'metrics' is distinct from other resources like work items or projects.

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 (e.g., manage_work_items, manage_boards). The description only states the action without context for selection.

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