Defect metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by defining escape rate as 'share found in production', which is a semantic clarification not available in structured fields. It says nothing about aggregation level, whether results are current or cached, or how missing components are handled — acceptable gaps given the annotation coverage.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the metric inventory is front-loaded. It reads slightly as an output dump rather than a purpose statement, but nothing in it is wasted.

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, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and the metric list does that well; the schema fully covers the two inputs. What is missing is whether numbers are point-in-time snapshots vs. trends and how they relate to get_kpi_trend or compare_periods, which keeps it short of a 5.

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%: both 'period' (with its full enum of windows plus the last_90_days default) and 'component' are documented in-schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail at all, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema is the right score.

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?

Enumerates the specific measures returned (created/resolved counts, escape rate, reopen rate, per-component escape rate, resolution time and SLA compliance by priority), which is materially more informative than the title 'Defect metrics'. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like get_defect_aging and get_mttr by covering breadth rather than one dimension, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never references a sibling. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call get_defect_metrics, get_defect_aging, or get_mttr when asked for 'defect health' — it has to infer from the metric list.

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