Options Info

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

There are no annotations, so the description must convey side effects. 'Get metadata' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or require no special permissions. The HTTP method (GET) is mentioned, which hints at safety, but is not sufficient for full transparency.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential information without fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does. It does not detail the return format beyond 'metadata', but that is acceptable given the lack of schema expectations. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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 tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent any parameter details, and the empty schema matches. No additional parameter information is needed.

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 that the tool retrieves metadata for all options, listing the specific fields (label, section, type, default, component). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that list other entities like checkpoints, samplers, etc.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool compared to alternatives. While it is obvious that it is for options, there is no guidance on scenarios where one might need this endpoint versus others, such as listing specific resource types.

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