list_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 covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the required org permission ('Modify All Data or Modify Metadata Through Metadata API Functions') is exactly the kind of auth detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage context and then the permission caveat. No filler and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the purpose, workflow, and auth prerequisite. The only real gap is that it does not clarify the non-metadataType parameters, but that is comparatively minor.

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 reported at 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for metadataType by naming example values (CustomObject, Layout) but says nothing about folder, targetOrg, apiVersion, or outputFile, leaving most of the nested input object unexplained.

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 and resource: 'List the metadata components and properties of a specified type.' It distinguishes itself implicitly from the sibling list_metadata_types (which returns types, not components of a type), though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives clear usage context: identify components in a manifest or get a high-level view of a metadata type, and describes the follow-on workflow ('then use this information in a retrieve command that returns a subset of these components'). No explicit exclusions or alternative tool named, so it falls short of a 5.

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