get_global_attributes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return format ('JSON string') and gives expected content (title, institution, history, conventions, other file-level metadata). However, it does not mention error behavior, file existence requirements, or that this is a read-only operation, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a content overview, and a clear Args/Returns breakdown. There is no redundant or filler text, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool with one required parameter, an output schema, and a clear return description, the definition is largely complete. The main gaps are the absence of edge-case behavior (missing file, invalid NetCDF) and lack of explicit guidance around when to prefer sibling tools, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema covers 0% of parameter semantics, but the description compensates with an explicit Args section: 'file_path: Path to the NetCDF file.' This adds real meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition, though it could include more detail about valid path forms or file accessibility.

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 verb 'Get' with a specific resource ('all global attributes (metadata) from a NetCDF file'), and lists representative contents like title, institution, and conventions. This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from sibling tools that focus on variables, dimensions, or spatial bounds.

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 implies usage when file-level metadata is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as get_file_structure or get_variable_info, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The context is clear enough for inference, but no direct routing guidance is given.

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