adtk

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. It only states the action ('get_metrics'), implying a read-only operation, but does not cover other important aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (especially since there is no output schema). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second lists the action. There is no wasted text, though it could be more informative. It efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage context. While the schema covers parameters, the description does not compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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%, so the input schema fully documents the parameters (action, project_key, work_item_id). The description adds minimal value by mentioning the 'get_metrics' action, which is already in the schema. It does not provide additional context about parameter usage, dependencies (e.g., work_item_id is required for get_metrics), or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Get issue lifecycle metrics for dashboards and visualizations.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('issue lifecycle metrics'), and mentions the intended use ('for dashboards and visualizations'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its many sibling 'manage_' tools, which all appear to manage different resources in the same system.

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?

The description provides minimal usage guidance. It lists an action ('get_metrics') but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other 'manage_' tools for related data (e.g., 'manage_work_items'). There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for invoking this tool.

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