get_component_measures

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the component is invalid, or any restrictions (e.g., required permissions).

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 (one sentence), which is good for readability, but it sacrifices necessary detail for a tool with three parameters and no schema documentation. It could be improved with brief parameter explanations.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, and minimal parameter information, the description is incomplete. It does not cover return values, error handling, or any usage constraints, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate. It hints at metric_keys values with 'bugs, coverage, etc.' but fails to explain the 'component' parameter (e.g., component key vs. name) or the optional 'branch' parameter.

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 retrieves metrics for a component, mentioning examples like bugs and coverage. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools such as get_duplications or search_metrics by specifying 'metric' retrieval for a component.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like search_metrics or get_file_coverage_details exist, but the description offers no context for selection or exclusions.

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