alterios_file_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only indicates 'Read' as a safe operation but does not disclose other behaviors such as authentication requirements, error handling for invalid file IDs, or rate limits.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it could include more contextual information without becoming verbose, so it is slightly under-sized.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what metadata is returned (despite having an output schema), nor does it cover parameter constraints or usage context, leaving significant gaps.

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 the three parameters beyond implying file_ids are the focus. It adds no meaning to 'profile' or 'project_id', leaving the agent guessing their roles.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'Alterios file metadata' with scope 'for one or more file IDs'. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like alterios_list_fields or alterios_list_comments.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., alterios_view_data, alterios_list_fields). The description only states what it does without usage context.

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