get_xmp_metadata

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden: 'Get' and 'raw XMP metadata XML' imply a read-only retrieval that returns an XML string, which is useful. However, it is silent on behavior when the item has no XMP block, on error conditions, and on authentication/preconditions for a project item accessor.

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. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified for a tool with no annotations and no output schema.

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 annotations, no output schema, and several metadata-related siblings, the description should clarify the return shape and how it differs from get_file_metadata/get_clip_metadata. As written, an agent has to guess at edge cases and sibling routing.

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 coverage is 100% and the nodeId description is already documented, so the baseline applies. The phrase 'of a project item' reinforces that nodeId is a project-item identifier rather than a clip or file id, but adds little beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Get the raw XMP metadata XML of a project item' tells the agent exactly what is retrieved and in what form (raw XML, not parsed fields). It is implicitly distinguishable from set_xmp_metadata and from get_file_metadata, though it never names those siblings 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the closely related get_clip_metadata, get_file_metadata, or set_xmp_metadata. The agent must infer from names alone which metadata accessor applies to which object type.

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