sigma_get_data_model

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which inform the agent about safety and openness. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as what 'metadata' includes or how the open-world hint might affect results. It fails to add value beyond the annotations.

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 extremely brief, which is concise, but it borders on under-specification. It lacks the structure needed to effectively guide tool selection, and while the single sentence is front-loaded, it does not provide sufficient detail to justify its brevity.

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?

With an output schema and annotations present, the description need not explain return values, but it must disambiguate from closely related siblings like sigma_get_data_model_spec. The current description does not clarify what 'metadata' entails or how it differs from other data model retrieval tools, making it incomplete in context.

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%, and the description does not mention the required data_model_id parameter or explain how to obtain its value. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional semantic context, leaving the agent without guidance on what constitutes a valid ID.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('data model metadata'). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool sigma_get_data_model_spec, which likely retrieves related data model information, leaving ambiguity about the specific scope of 'metadata'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sigma_list_data_models or sigma_get_data_model_spec. There is no mention of prerequisites, recommended contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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