fm_get_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether it requires an active connection, what the response contains, or any rate-limit/caching behavior. Only the implicit 'Get' verb hints at a read.

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 front-loaded phrase with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately short for a one-parameter lookup, though the 'layouts/tables' parenthetical is ambiguous rather than informative.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it neither clarifies the overlapping scope with fm_get_layout_metadata nor describes what metadata is returned. The agent cannot confidently route between the metadata-related siblings.

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% and the single 'database' parameter is a fully documented enum constrained to MAIN, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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 verb (Get) and resource (database metadata) with a parenthetical hint of layouts/tables, so the basic purpose is legible. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling fm_get_layout_metadata, which sounds like it returns the same layouts information, leaving the agent unsure which to pick. The parenthetical also raises doubt about whether tables are truly in scope.

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?

No indication of when to call this versus fm_get_layout_metadata, fm_list_databases, or fm_get_scripts. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives despite several closely related siblings existing.

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