Get Kilango Meta

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already establish the safety profile of this as a non-destructive read. The description adds the 'connected workspace' scoping context but doesn't elaborate on what metadata fields are returned or whether results may vary. Since annotations cover the core behavioral traits, credit is given for the added scoping context without heavy burden.

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 one clean sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every part earns its place. There is nothing extraneous.

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 parameterless metadata retrieval tool with rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description adequately captures its purpose. There's no output schema, so describing the return value shape would be helpful, but for a simple metadata tool the level of completeness is reasonable. It doesn't detail what specific metadata fields are exposed, which is a minor gap.

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?

There are 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema has nothing to document. With no parameters, the baseline is 4; the description doesn't need to explain parameters that don't exist. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter meaning.

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 states 'Return server/tenant metadata for the connected workspace.' This uses a specific verb (Return) and resource (server/tenant metadata for the connected workspace). It's clear what the tool does and distinguishes it adequately from siblings like get_workspace or get_portal, though it doesn't spell out the distinction explicitly.

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 a clear context ('for the connected workspace') but doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs alternatives. Since it has no parameters and returns metadata, the usage intent is reasonably implied, but no when-not or alternative guidance is provided despite a large sibling set of get_* tools.

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