get_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides minimal behavioral context: 'HTTP-only on the REST side' is a transport detail, not a behavioral trait like side effects or authorization requirements. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response format is, or any rate-limiting/pagination behavior. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 a single, focused sentence (about 20 words) that conveys the core resource, its content, and an interface constraint. There is no filler or redundancy; every phrase adds value. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the key term 'metadata'.

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 getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what data is returned (capabilities + states per device). However, it omits practical details an agent might need: whether the response is a list/map, if authentication is required, and whether this is a read-only operation. The lack of annotations and output schema shifts more responsibility onto the description, which it only partially fulfills.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema already reflects that with 100% coverage. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate further.

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 identifies the resource as 'Declarative bridge metadata (capabilities + states per device)', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_devices or get_status. The verb is implicit in the tool name 'get_metadata', but the description clarifies what is retrieved. Slight deduction for not explicitly stating 'returns' or 'retrieves', though the meaning is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'as consumed by federation peers' implies this tool is intended for federation integration rather than general device queries. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios. The usage context is only partially specified.

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