pacs_get_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the return content (DICOM header information with specific categories) and implementation protocols (WADO-RS metadata or DIMSE C-FIND). The '[Premium]' tag indicates access restrictions. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or response format specifics.

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 efficiently structured across three sentences: the first establishes the core action and access tier ([Premium]), the second details the return payload, and the third specifies the underlying protocols. Every sentence provides distinct value with no 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately compensates by enumerating the categories of returned DICOM header information. It covers the essential behavioral and protocol context for a 2-parameter read operation. A minor gap remains regarding error conditions or explicit return format specifications.

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 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'study or series' which aligns with the two parameters (study_instance_uid and series_instance_uid), but does not add semantic clarification, examples, or format constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 provides a specific verb ('Retrieve'), clear resource ('detailed metadata for a study or series from PACS'), and distinguishes from siblings like pacs_retrieve and pacs_query by specifying it returns 'DICOM header information' and uses specific protocols (WADO-RS metadata/C-FIND) rather than image retrieval or general study search.

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 clear technical context that distinguishes this tool—specifying it returns DICOM header details (patient, study, series, equipment) and uses WADO-RS metadata or C-FIND protocols. This implies when to use it (when header metadata is needed, not images). However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives (e.g., 'use pacs_retrieve for image data').

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