ftrack_get_upload_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, mention authentication requirements, or describe any side effects. The minimal description lacks transparency about what the tool actually does beyond the metadata retrieval.

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 earns its place. There is no redundancy, promotional content, or unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded and immediately states the tool's purpose.

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 absence of annotations, an output schema, and any usage guidance, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the returned metadata looks like, how it is used in the upload process, or how the parameters relate to the upload workflow. For a tool with four parameters and no output schema, this level of minimalism leaves the agent insufficiently informed to use it correctly.

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%, and the parameter names and descriptions are self-explanatory. The tool description adds a small amount of context by indicating these parameters are 'required for uploading a file,' but it does not elaborate on relationships or format details beyond what the schema already provides. 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 retrieves 'metadata required for uploading a file to ftrack' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes its role from siblings like ftrack_generate_signed_url and ftrack_complete_multipart_upload, but does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is understandable and specific.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, typical invocation flow, or which sibling tools would be preferred in different scenarios. The description is purely a declarative statement of function without usage context.

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