check_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It clarifies the tool is read-only ('kontrol eder' meaning checks) and specifies what elements are inspected. This is sufficient for a validation tool, though it does not mention side effects or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value—first the overall function, then the specific items checked. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the tool's function and inspected items but omits any mention of output (e.g., return value, report format) even though no output schema exists. For a validation tool, this is a minor gap but leaves room for interpretation.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain code, filename, or pageType further). Baseline 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 checks SEO metadata completeness of Next.js page/layout files and enumerates specific metadata fields (title, OpenGraph, Twitter card, etc.). This verb+resource specification distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_accessibility or get_seo_recommendations.

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 use when verifying SEO metadata, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools (e.g., get_seo_recommendations). No exclusions or usage context beyond the core purpose.

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