get_measures

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only retrieval, but nothing is said about permissions, pull request scoping effects, strategy behavior, unsupported metric keys, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise with no filler or repetition. The action is front-loaded and every word earns its place, though the brevity does sacrifice contextual richness.

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?

The tool has four parameters, a dense default metric list, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only offers 'Get component measures/metrics'. It says nothing about the return shape, how strategy affects results, what pullRequest does, or failure behavior, leaving too much for the agent to infer.

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 even though the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The schema already documents component, strategy, metricKeys, and pullRequest with descriptions and defaults, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('component measures/metrics'), so the core action is understandable. It is not a pure tautology, but it uses generic 'measures/metrics' phrasing and does not differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like search_metrics or get_quality_gate_status.

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 guidance on when to call get_measures versus any of its siblings. The sibling list includes several metrics- and quality-related tools, but the description provides no routing hints, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent choose correctly.

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