sonarqube_measures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — that rating metrics are rendered as letter grades A-E — but says nothing about branch/pull-request scoping semantics or how missing/never-computed metrics are reported.

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 compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably even slightly under-specified rather than padded, which is the right failure mode for conciseness.

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?

For a read-only tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but leaves gaps: no indication of what a result entry looks like (metric key plus value/period), and no guidance on branch vs pullRequest scoping. Adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 all four parameters (project, metricKeys, branch, pullRequest) are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description contributes a small extra by naming additional metric keys (new_coverage, reliability_rating) and explaining the A-E output convention, but it does not clarify how branch and pullRequest interact.

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 ("Read measures for a project") and enumerates representative metrics, so the agent knows exactly what data this returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like sonarqube_issues or sonarqube_quality_gate, but the 'measures/metrics' framing is distinctive enough to separate it.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage-adjacent content is the metric examples, which guide what to pass rather than when to call the tool.

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