Get Text Metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavioral variation: local adapters return file metadata and provenance, while deferred/remote-only sources return explicit status. It does not cover read-only guarantees or error behavior, but it adds substantive context beyond a simple 'get metadata' statement.

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 concise, with the core purpose in the first sentence and necessary adapter-specific nuance in the second. There is no filler, repetition, or redundant restatement of schema fields.

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?

For a simple two-parameter metadata lookup with an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose and important adapter-dependent behavior. The main gaps are parameter clarification and explicit sibling routing, but the output schema reduces the need to describe return structure.

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 0%, and the description does not explain what 'corpus' or 'reference' mean, their formats, or how they relate. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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, 'Retrieve metadata', with a clearly identified resource, 'a text reference'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_text (content retrieval) and get_corpus_status (corpus-level status) without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 conditional context for local adapters vs deferred/remote-only sources, which helps set expectations, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than clearly routed.

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