Get Cached Metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the caching layer, the 24-hour TTL, and the fact that a read may trigger an implicit sync. It does not describe the exact response shape, but the counts are enumerated.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence, then cache semantics, then the routing list. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (project/tag counts and per-project counts), and it covers the cache-miss behavior and alternatives. An agent has everything needed to call 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter syntax the description needs to supply. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 specific verb+resource (returns a compact summary of cached MantisBT metadata) and enumerates exactly what the summary contains: project count, tag count, and per-project user/version/category counts. This clearly distinguishes it from get_metadata_full and the individual list_* siblings.

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?

Explicitly states the automatic-sync behavior when the cache is missing/expired (TTL 24h), names sync_metadata as the tool to force a refresh, and routes the agent to the specific alternatives (list_projects, get_project_users/versions/categories, list_tags) for full data.

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