Get Cached Metadata

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

Annotations already mark it as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: the auto-sync behavior if cache expires, and the default TTL of 24 hours. It does not mention error handling or performance, but the added details go beyond 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 concise: two sentences and a list of sibling tools. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It efficiently conveys purpose, caching behavior, and alternatives.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, caching behavior, and when to use sibling tools. It is fully sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information because none exist.

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 tool returns a compact summary of cached MantisBT metadata, listing specific counts (projects, tags, per-project users, versions, categories). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_metadata_full and list_projects by noting that it provides a summary while siblings provide full lists.

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 specifies when to use this tool (for a compact summary) and when to use alternatives: sync_metadata for forced refresh, and various list_* tools for full details. This provides clear guidance on tool selection.

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