lightroom_get_photo_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and the listed metadata categories clarify what is returned, but the description does not mention error behavior, permissions, or side effects. Adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every listed metadata category adds useful specificity, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and has an output schema, so return-value details are not necessary. However, the description lacks parameter semantics and usage guidance, and the absence of annotations leaves some operational context implicit. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 schema has zero description coverage for photo_id, and the description does not explain the parameter beyond saying 'for a photo.' It adds no meaningful detail about how to obtain the ID, expected format, or constraints beyond the schema's name and type.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'metadata' for a photo, enumerating EXIF, camera, lens, dimensions, and develop parameters. It clearly states the tool's purpose but does not differentiate it from the sibling get_photo_metadata or address overlap with other photo-retrieval 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like get_photo_metadata and get_selected_photos may overlap, but the description does not explain when this specific metadata fetch is preferable.

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