template_get_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that omitted filters return everything and that some sections only apply to certain artifact types — genuinely useful behavioral context. It says nothing about error handling, permissions, or response size, so it is a middling score rather than a high one.

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?

One lead sentence followed by a tight per-parameter list and a one-line return shape. Front-loaded with purpose, no filler, and every line carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so the brief 'Returns JSON: {template_id, sections, warnings}' line is slightly redundant but harmless confirmation. For a read-only, three-parameter retrieval tool the description covers purpose, scoping, and return shape adequately; the only real omission is how to choose between this and get_artifact_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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it documents all three parameters, including the ID format ('45 for PT:45'), the default-to-all behavior for both optional filters, and an example artifact_type value. It defers enum values to the schema ('see enum') rather than enumerating the eight metadata types, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieves template metadata sections for a product template.' An agent can tell this is a metadata-reading tool rather than an artifact search/update tool, which covers most siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, get_artifact_schema, so it falls short of a 5.

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 parameter notes ('Omit for all', 'filter to one kind', 'severities→Incident, importances→Requirement') give practical guidance on how to scope a call, which is implied usage context. However there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_artifact_schema or the search tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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