get_project_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. The verb 'Get' indicates a read operation, and the parenthetical '(config, formats, witnesses)' clarifies what kind of metadata is returned. However, it does not disclose potential errors, authentication needs, or any other behavioral edge cases beyond the basic retrieval nature.

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 brief and effective: a single clear sentence defining the tool's purpose followed by a directly relevant Args section. There is no filler or repetition of the input 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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides enough information to invoke it correctly: the parameter is explained with examples, and the return shape is presumably covered by the output schema. The main missing piece is any relationship or contrast with sibling tools like get_project_manifest, which would improve completeness.

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 only defines 'project' as a string with no description, so the argument documentation is essential and fully compensates. The description explains the parameter is an 'ORACC project identifier' and gives concrete examples ('rimanum' or 'aemw/alalakh/idrimi'), which makes the expected format unambiguous.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get metadata for an ORACC project', and lists the metadata categories (config, formats, witnesses). This is clear enough to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_project_manifest, which could plausibly return overlapping data.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project_manifest or list_project_texts. The description implies it is for fetching project metadata but provides no conditions, exclusions, or preferred alternatives.

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