get_browser_item_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the data is MCP-managed, the item must be exactly and currently observed, and native collections are explicitly out of scope.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The main capability is front-loaded and the exclusions are stated efficiently.

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-only 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is complete. It names exactly what is returned (tags, favorite state, revision), constrains usage to one item, and clarifies what is not covered.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful semantic context by specifying 'exact' and 'currently observed,' which clarifies how path/root parameters should be resolved beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('private MCP-managed tags, favorite state, and revision') for one exact currently observed Live browser item. It also differentiates itself by explicitly stating it does not read Live's native collections.

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 clearly scopes usage to a single exact currently observed browser item and adds an explicit exclusion ('Does not read Live's native collections'). However, it does not name the sibling alternative search_browser_item_metadata or specify when searching would be more appropriate, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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