Ler metadado do modelo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation without destructive side effects. The description confirms this by saying 'Le um metadado'. It adds no extra behavioral context, such as behavior on missing keys, return structure, or whether the result could be null. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate—there is no contradiction, but little added transparency beyond the structured data.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action (read metadata by key) and includes examples. There is no wasted text; it is appropriately concise and directly useful.

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 read operation with two parameters, full annotation coverage (read-only, open world), and unambiguous schema, the description provides enough context: verb, resource, and parameter examples. It does not explain the return format or error handling, but given the simplicity and annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly. The lack of output schema means the description could have included return expectations, but the low complexity keeps this a minor gap.

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%; both modelUuid and key are described in the schema. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of valid keys ('timestamp ou version'), which helps clarify the semantics of the key parameter beyond the generic schema description. This enriches the parameter understanding, so a 4 is warranted.

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?

States a specific verb 'Le um metadado' (reads a metadata) with a resource 'model' and a key parameter, plus examples ('timestamp ou version'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling read tools like solibri_get_model_components or solibri_get_selection_basket, which read other model aspects.

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 usage: use this when you need a metadata value for a specific key on a model. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor references any alternatives among the 24 sibling tools. It is adequate but relies on the agent to infer context.

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