fm_get_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'Reads' implying read-only, but does not disclose potential large response size, caching behavior, or any side effects. Additional context like 'use sparingly due to payload size' would improve 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value. No unnecessary elaboration.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately describes what the tool returns (full metadata document). It mentions the format (EDMX/XML) and contents. However, it could mention that the response might be large, which would help the agent set expectations. Still, it is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and the description meets that without adding unnecessary information.

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 reads the full OData $metadata document and lists contents (tables, fields, types, relationships). Uses specific verb 'reads' and resource 'OData $metadata document'. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like fm_get_service_document or fm_introspect, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., fm_introspect, fm_get_service_document). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria. This leaves the agent without decision support.

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