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 of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this is read-only (likely yes, but unstated), what specific metadata fields are returned (size, modified time, sharing info), error behavior if the path is missing, or rate limiting considerations.

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?

Single sentence of seven words is appropriately front-loaded and wastes no words. However, the extreme brevity contributes to the completeness deficit given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a 'get' operation that likely returns rich structured data, the description is insufficient. It fails to enumerate what metadata is returned, whether it works on deleted files, or how to interpret the results.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single 'path' parameter, the schema already documents the input adequately. The description mirrors the schema's 'file or folder' clarification but adds no additional semantic value regarding path format requirements (absolute vs relative, root prefix, case sensitivity).

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 (Get), resource (metadata), and target (file or folder in Dropbox). However, it does not distinguish from siblings like list_folder (which returns children/contents) or get_space_usage (which returns quota info), leaving the agent to infer this returns properties of the item itself rather than its contents.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus list_folder (which also takes a folder path) or search. Does not mention prerequisites like path existence requirements or permissions needed.

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