fm_get_metadata

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but does not state whether it hits the live system, returns cached data (relevant given the fm_clear_cache sibling), or any side effects. For a metadata fetch, basic read-only intent is implied but not explicit, and no further context is provided.

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 sentence with a clarifying parenthetical, front-loading the core action and scope. There is no fluff or redundancy—every word earns its place. This is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks key context: it does not differentiate from the closely related fm_get_layout_metadata, and it does not describe the return structure. Given the sibling list, an agent could easily confuse this tool with the layout-specific variant, and without an output schema, some indication of the response shape would be beneficial.

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 input schema already provides full coverage for the single parameter 'database' with an enum and description 'Database identifier'. The tool description does not add any meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already states. According to the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description offers no extra semantic value.

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 'Get database metadata (layouts/tables)' uses a specific verb (Get) and a clear resource (database metadata) with a parenthetical clarifying that it covers layouts and tables. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fm_get_layout_metadata (focused on layout metadata) and fm_list_databases (lists databases). This is precise and non-tautological.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. It does not mention fm_get_layout_metadata for layout-specific queries, nor does it indicate any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the generic name and the phrasing of the tool, which is inadequate given the overlapping sibling tools.

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