manage_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must compensate. The description implies read-only behavior ('get') but does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive, nor does it mention permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. This leaves gaps for the agent.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and directly lists the actions with meaningful context. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the actions well but lacks information about return values, behavioral impact, and when to use. It is minimally adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the two actions in detail: 'raw date info, status transitions, time-in-status' for get_dates and 'computed cycle time, lead time, time in current status, status breakdown' for get_metrics. This goes beyond the schema's simple enum-like description.

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 two distinct actions with clear explanations, making it easy to understand what the tool does. The resource 'issue lifecycle metrics' is well-defined and distinct from sibling tools.

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 implicitly indicates usage by detailing actions, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. Given the domain separation from siblings, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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