get_metadata

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of editorType modes ('dev' is read-only, 'figjam' lacks components/variables/styles), which is behavioral context beyond the annotation. No contradiction exists.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, uses a colon to list contents, and appends a clarifying parenthetical. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates all return fields (fileName, current page, references, editor type/mode) and adds necessary context about editor modes. Minor ambiguity around 'all page references' prevents a perfect score.

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 zero parameters, so the description correctly omits parameter syntax. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and no additional parameter details are needed.

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 opens with 'Return file metadata' and enumerates specific fields: fileName, current page, all page references, and editor type/mode. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_document or get_node, which focus on document structure rather than file-level metadata.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you need file metadata or editor context—but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The note about 'dev' and 'figjam' provides some interpretive context but stops short of guiding tool selection among siblings.

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