get_document_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a read operation. It adds useful context about the response contents (checksums, sizes, archival info), but it does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as permission requirements or edge cases. Given the annotation coverage, a middle score is appropriate.

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?

A single clear sentence with no filler. The key action and resource are front-loaded, and the additional metadata details are presented compactly without redundancy.

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 one-parameter read-only operation with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource and highlights the return contents. It is slightly vague about 'archival information' and does not clarify its relationship to get_document, but an agent can still invoke it correctly.

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 100% for the single parameter 'id', which is documented as 'The document ID'. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning, but with full schema coverage, the baseline score applies.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get file metadata for a document') and lists concrete contents (checksums, file sizes, archival information). This distinguishes it from content- or download-focused siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from get_document, which may also return 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_document, get_document_content, or download_document. The phrase 'file metadata' implies a use case, but no exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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