get_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('조회합니다'), which is helpful, but doesn't mention what metadata is returned, format of return data, whether it requires specific permissions, or any error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 this is a simple read operation with 0 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally specify what metadata is returned or at least indicate the scope of metadata. The description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the return format.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is correct for this case. Baseline for 0 parameters with full schema coverage is 4.

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 action ('조회합니다' - retrieves/reads) and resource ('현재 열린 문서의 메타데이터' - metadata of currently open document), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'open_document' or 'set_workspace' which might also interact with documents.

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 provides minimal guidance by specifying '현재 열린 문서' (currently open document), implying it should be used when a document is already open. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance compared to alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned, and no discussion of when not to use this tool versus other document-related tools.

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