get_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 only the basic operation and return type ('MetadataResponse'), but lacks information about prerequisites, error behavior, rate limits, or any non-obvious side effects. The include_files/include_versions args are mentioned but only as schema parameter semantics.

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 concise and logically structured: a one-sentence overview, an Args block, and a Returns line. There is no redundant text, though the Args block is formatted with colons instead of bullets, which is slightly less scannable.

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, the description relies on the vague statement 'Returns: MetadataResponse containing the record metadata.' It does not explain what fields are in the response, how include_files/versions affect the output, or any edge cases. The absence of usage context further limits completeness.

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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: record_id as 'The ID of the Zenodo record', include_files as 'Whether to include file information', and include_versions as 'Whether to include version information'. These explanations provide the meaning missing from the schema.

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's function: 'Retrieve detailed metadata for a Zenodo record.' The verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'metadata' distinguish it from siblings like search_records and list_files, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for fetching a record by ID rather than searching, nor does it reference sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and args.

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