daz_get_content_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses the tool's behavior: it parses the JSON structure, extracts specific fields, and raises errors for missing or invalid files. It does not detail edge cases or performance, but overall is transparent.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear opening sentence followed by additional details in a standard Args/Returns/Raises format. Slightly longer than necessary but efficient.

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 read tool with one parameter, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, input requirements, output structure (dict with fields), and error conditions. Complete for its complexity.

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 only parameter 'file_path' is thoroughly described in the Args section as an absolute path to a .duf file, adding meaning beyond the schema's type string.

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 clearly states the tool reads metadata from a .duf content file without loading it into the scene, using specific verbs and a clear resource. It distinguishes from siblings like daz_load_file by emphasizing the read-only operation on unloaded files.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to obtain metadata without loading the file), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. This is a minor gap.

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