Read document metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the xlsx-to-pdf preview mechanism and the odf standalone formula document behavior, which are valuable details. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or whether the operation is strictly read-only beyond the action verb 'reads'.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and metadata fields, followed by necessary format caveats. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description lists the metadata fields returned but does not specify the return format or structure. It also highlights xlsx and odf quirks but leaves other formats (e.g., pdf, docx) without caveats, leaving potential gaps for those formats.

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 already describes the 'source' parameter with 100% coverage across its oneOf variants (path vs bytesBase64/format). The description adds no extra meaning about parameter values, syntax, or edge cases, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Reads a document's own title/author/subject/keywords/creator/producer/created-and-modified-timestamp metadata.' This precisely defines the tool's function and naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like metadata_write and pdf_inspect.

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 states it works across every supported format, and specifically calls out xlsx and odf with implementation caveats. This gives clear context for when the tool applies, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for specific cases.

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