QMetry: Fetch Quality Gate Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the expected output (assessment scope, gate criteria, thresholds) and discloses that the backend will return an error if AI Agent is not enabled for the project.

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 well-structured with clear sections (toolset, parameters, use cases, examples, hints) and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is somewhat long and repeats parameter information already present in the schema, but each section earns its place by providing actionable guidance.

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 there is no output schema and the tool has three parameters, the description is thorough: it explains the purpose, details each parameter's role, provides a concrete example, lists use cases, and includes error-behavior hints. An agent has everything it needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds emphasis on the distinction between projectId and projectKey ('internal numeric identifier, not the project key'), and includes an example with real values, but these largely restate or reinforce what the schema already documents rather than adding new semantic meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('quality gate configuration') and clearly scopes it to a project and AI agent, including what the configuration contains (assessment scope and gate criteria). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'Execute Quality Gate Report' by explicitly positioning this as the pre-step to that tool.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: 'Call this tool before Execute Quality Gate Report' and enumerates three concrete use cases. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name other alternatives, but the timing against a specific sibling is a strong contextual cue.

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