Get DocType Metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. However, it only says 'Get complete metadata' without mentioning read-only nature, return format, scope of configuration (e.g., fields, permissions, customizations), or any side effects. It adds no behavioral context beyond the name, leaving the agent uninformed about what to expect.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the key verb 'Get'. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and contains no unnecessary words or repetition. Every word earns its place, even if the content is somewhat vague.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description must carry the burden of explaining what the tool returns and when to use it. 'Complete metadata including all configuration' is ambiguous—it doesn't specify whether fields are included, how the data is structured, or any authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns a complex object.

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 has one parameter, 'doctype', with a description 'ERPNext DocType' (100% schema coverage). The tool description does not add parameter-specific details, but since the schema already explains the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description's mention of 'metadata' implicitly ties to the doctype parameter but adds no further semantic value.

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 action (get) and the resource (metadata for a DocType), with a hint that it covers 'all configuration'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_doctype_fields by implying a broader scope, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The verb and object are specific enough to avoid confusion with unrelated tools.

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 versus alternatives like get_doctype_fields or get_doctypes. It does not state any exclusions, prerequisites, or context such as 'use this when you need full DocType settings beyond just fields'. The implied usage is minimal and not supported by explicit direction.

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