get_odt_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 correctly implies a read-only operation ('Henter' = retrieves) and discloses the return type (metadata). However, it does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., file not found), performance characteristics, or any side effects. This is adequate but minimal.

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 a single sentence that conveys the essential purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient. Every word contributes meaning.

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 simple tool (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides sufficient context: it names example metadata fields (author, title, date) to set expectations. While it could mention return format or error conditions, the current level is adequate for typical usage.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'file_path', with a description in the schema. The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameter itself but provides context about what metadata is returned (author, title, date). Per guidelines, with high schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 action ('Henter metadata') and resource ('.odt fil'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on metadata retrieval vs file listing (list_odt_files) or XML extraction (extract_odt_xml). The verb and object are specific.

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 implies usage context (when you need metadata like author, title, date) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. With sibling tools present, more explicit guidance would help, but the purpose is clear enough for basic discrimination.

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