get_codebase_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals one behavioral trait (automatic routing), but does not address potential error states, authentication requirements, or the read-only nature of the operation. This provides moderate transparency but leaves gaps.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the key behavioral hint. Every word adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 output schema and the moderate complexity of the tool (multiple metadata types), the description provides a reasonable overview but does not fully specify the return structure, error conditions, or behavior when no project is known. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 for both parameters (project and project_directory). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the guidelines, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves codebase metadata including specific items like framework, dependencies, architecture patterns, and statistics. This sufficiently distinguishes it from sibling tools that have different focuses (e.g., health, style guide), though it could be more explicit about what it does not cover.

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 mentions automatic routing to the active project when known, providing some context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_codebase_health or get_team_patterns, nor any mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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