metrika_manage_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two real facts beyond the annotations: the args shape (path ids + query{...}) and that 'catalog' runs locally, neither of which is in the structured data.

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?

One compact sentence pair, front-loaded with the purpose and mechanism before the discovery hint. Dense but every clause carries information; the semicolon-compressed arg syntax is slightly terse but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the catalog hint covers discovery. However, for a generic open-world dispatcher with an unconstrained 'operation' string, more guidance on naming conventions or the doc/catalog relationship would be needed to call it confidently without first probing.

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 0% and the description is the only documentation source, but it only sketches args ('path ids, query{...}') and mentions one valid operation value ('catalog'). The large open string space for 'operation' is left almost entirely unspecified, so it compensates only partially.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Metrika management/report reads') plus the dispatch mechanism ('by operation name'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the prepare/apply/reconcile write-side siblings of the same 'manage' family. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied by 'Read-only' rather than stated.

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?

Offers a concrete discovery path via operation='catalog', which is genuinely actionable, but never says when to prefer this tool over metrika_report, metrika_get_statistics, metrika_manage_prepare, or metrika_manage_apply. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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