zim_metadata

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it details the combined M-namespace metadata, per-namespace counts, archive identity, index capabilities, counter breakdown, and the standard _meta envelope. It also explicitly calls out the absence of main_page_path and the structured error behavior for bad input.

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 well-structured with clear PARAMETERS, RESPONSE, and ERRORS sections, front-loaded with a one-sentence summary of what the tool does. Every section adds needed information, and the explicit no-main_page_path note prevents a common misuse without padding.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers return shape, error behavior, parameter meaning, aliases, and relationship to sibling tools. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly and interpret its response.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must document the parameter itself. It states that zim_file_path is REQUIRED and defines it as 'The archive to inspect,' which is sufficient for a single self-naming parameter, and the error section clarifies the consequence of a missing or invalid 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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Inspect a ZIM archive's metadata + namespace inventory.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling content-access tools like zim_get and zim_search by naming the combined metadata/namespace scope and explicitly replacing the legacy get_zim_metadata + list_namespaces pair.

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 direct routing guidance: aliases like 'metadata for <archive>' should go through this tool, and it explicitly warns that main-page fetch belongs in zim_get(main_page=True) rather than exposing a main_page_path here. This gives an agent actionable when-to-use and when-not-to-use information.

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