quality_metrics

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any behavioral traits beyond that.

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, front-loaded sentence of 11 words. It is highly concise with no superfluous information, earning a top score.

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 is simple with 2 parameters and an output schema, so the description partially covers what is needed. However, it lacks context on prerequisites, how quality metrics relate to other sibling tools, or any performance implications. With output schema present, return values are covered, but overall completeness is average.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description adds minimal value ('optional filtering' is already implied by shortcodeIn). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already explains the parameters adequately.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'quality metrics', and the source 'DeepSource project'. It also mentions optional filtering, which adds clarity. However, it does not elaborate on what 'quality metrics' entail (e.g., code quality metrics), missing an opportunity to differentiate from siblings like dependency_vulnerabilities or project_issues.

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 its siblings. The description mentions optional filtering but does not explain when filtering is appropriate or when alternative tools (e.g., for issues or vulnerabilities) should be used instead.

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