tooltrace_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the operation is a read-only extraction and adds the 'lightweight' behavioral trait, but it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or response format. The schema covers rendering modes and credits, partially compensating for the lack of annotation context.

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 with no filler. The core action and output fields are front-loaded, and the distinguishing 'Lightweight alternative' note is placed at the end without bloating the description.

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 fairly simple metadata-extraction tool, the description covers the core purpose and output scope, and the schema covers parameters. However, with no output schema or annotations, the description could have added a bit more about expected return shape or the conditions under which browser rendering becomes necessary beyond what the parameter descriptions already state.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all four parameters, including the render mode's credit implications. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') with a clear resource ('page metadata') and enumerates the concrete fields returned (title, description, canonical URL, author, etc.). The phrase 'Lightweight alternative to full extraction' explicitly differentiates this from the sibling tooltrace_extract, so an agent can distinguish it without opening 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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when only page metadata is needed, as a lighter-weight option than full extraction. It does not name the alternative sibling explicitly or provide an exhaustive when-not-to-use list, but the context is unambiguous enough for tool selection.

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