nexterm_get_audit_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description doesn't contradict it. What the description omits is the shape of what comes back — whether 'metadata' is a flat list of action strings, resource type objects, or both — which is the one behavior an agent would still need.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Slightly penalized because 'metadata' is a vague noun that could have been made concrete in the same number of words.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations about return content, the description is the only place the return value could be characterized, and it doesn't do so. For a discovery tool whose entire value is its output, that leaves a real gap, though the low complexity keeps it from being severe.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a pure retrieval with no caller-supplied inputs, and the empty schema corroborates that nothing needs to be supplied.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get available audit actions and resource metadata'), which tells an agent this is an enumeration/discovery tool. It is distinguishable from nexterm_get_audit_logs, though it doesn't explicitly say the metadata exists to supply filter values for that sibling.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus nexterm_get_audit_logs or the audit-settings tools. An agent must infer that this is a reference lookup to run before filtering logs, which is not said anywhere.

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