view_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, but the word 'View' indicates a read-only operation and the description enumerates the exact metadata fields returned. It does not discuss error handling or output format, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient.

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, immediately front-loaded with the action and resource, and lists the relevant fields without any filler or redundancy.

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 metadata-viewing tool, the description covers the essential purpose and output fields. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit field list, though the return format (e.g., JSON object, plain text) is not specified.

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?

The schema already describes the only parameter ('file' is an absolute path to a PDF) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('view') and resource ('PDF metadata'), and explicitly lists the fields returned (title, author, subject, keywords, creator, page count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_metadata and remove_metadata.

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 the tool is for reading metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as edit_metadata or remove_metadata. No exclusions or conditional usage are provided.

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