get_design_element_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the roll-up aggregation behavior and the effect of include_children, which is valuable. However, it does not specify what metrics are included or any prerequisites or limitations, leaving some ambiguity about the exact return payload.

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?

Two concise sentences that get to the point. The description avoids redundancy and clearly front-loads the primary purpose before explaining the parameter nuance.

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 description adequately covers the tool's core behavior and the key parameter nuance for a simple read operation. However, it does not enumerate the specific metric fields returned or any error conditions, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description explains the include_children parameter's effect and clarifies the aggregate nature of the result. project_id and element_id are self-evident from the tool's scope, and required fields are implied by the schema.

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 design element, with a specific explanation of how work is rolled up. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_metrics and get_milestone_metrics, which target different entities. The mention of include_children adds behavioral specificity.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over get_project_metrics or get_milestone_metrics. The usage is implied by the tool's name and the description's focus on design elements, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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