Get OtaKit bundle metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope beyond them: what the payload contains (bounded native-package metadata, encryption presence) and, more importantly, what it will never expose (keys, storage URLs). It stops short of stating authorization requirements despite the word 'authorized'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb-and-resource comes first and the security constraints follow. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so at a useful level (bounded native-package metadata, encryption presence, deliberate omissions). What is missing is any note on authorization prerequisites or failure behavior for an unknown bundleId.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both appId and bundleId fully documented in-schema, including the conditional requirement for appId. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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') and resource ('bundle metadata') and narrows scope to 'a known bundle', implicitly separating it from the list_bundles sibling. It never names an alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader infers it is for fetching metadata when a bundleId is already known. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to list_bundles or get_release_state for the neighboring questions.

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