read_local_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond them: that pixel data is deliberately excluded, which prevents an agent from expecting image content in the response.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the core action plus the key exclusion are both front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

With an output schema present, return shape needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The only real gap is guidance on when this local read should be chosen over the sibling get_metadata/list_local_files.

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 100%, so both path (allowed-paths constraint) and max_depth (sequence expansion depth, 0-5) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about either parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Read the full header of a local DICOM file') and adds a scope constraint that separates it from pixel-level siblings like render_image or pixel_statistics. It never names an alternative such as get_metadata, so the local-vs-remote distinction is left implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied through the words 'local DICOM file' and 'pixel data is not loaded'. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_metadata or list_local_files, and no prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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