wit_meta

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'Leitura' (reading), clearly signaling a non-mutating, safe operation. It also implies the tool returns metadata rather than performing work-item changes, which is valuable behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the resource, lists the supported kinds, gives a concrete usage directive, and notes read-only behavior in just two sentences. There is minimal waste, even though the kind list partially duplicates the schema enum.

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 metadata lookup with four parameters, the description provides the essential information: what kinds of metadata exist, when to call it, and that it is safe. There is no output schema, but the return value is reasonably inferable from the requested kind. A minor gap is the lack of detail about what each kind returns.

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 75% and all parameters have useful descriptions or enums in the schema itself. The description adds little beyond repeating the kind enum, but because the schema already documents parameters well, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as process metadata and enumerates the supported kinds ('types | states | fields | categories | relationtypes | areas | iterations | tags'). It also states the intended role ('Use antes de criar/atualizar para descobrir tipos, estados e campos válidos'), making it distinguishable from the query/get/create sibling tools.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use antes de criar/atualizar para descobrir tipos, estados e campos válidos.' This tells an agent when to call the tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but for a metadata lookup the primary routing cue is the before-create/update context.

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