query_measurements

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds minimal context ('reviewed filters', 'cursors') but does not disclose any new behavioral traits such as pagination semantics, filtering rules, or what 'normalized' entails.

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 a single sentence and is free of redundancy, but it is under-specified. It is concise in length but not in substance, offering only a minimal phrase that could be more informative without bloating.

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 6 optional parameters, no parameter descriptions, and an output schema present, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what normalized measurements are, how filters interact, or the pagination mechanism, making it difficult for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It only vaguely mentions 'filters and cursors' without specifying how limit, cursor, run_id, artifact_id, name_prefix, or include_warmups behave. This leaves the agent without sufficient semantics to choose parameter values correctly.

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 identifies the action ('Query') and the resource ('normalized measurements'), which distinguishes it from sibling extract/analyze tools. However, 'normalized' and 'reviewed filters' are somewhat vague, leaving some ambiguity about what exactly is being queried.

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, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description does not reference sibling tools or indicate a preferred context.

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