extract_podio_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the fallback mechanism (xrdcp) and HTTP preference, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what happens on failure, or required permissions. Moderate transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no fluff. The key action and fallback condition are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the key parameter detail. However, it lacks information about the return format or potential side effects, which might be necessary for full contextual completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining the fallback behavior for allow_copy, but does not significantly enhance understanding of path and server beyond the schema.

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 specifies extracting metadata from the podio_metadata tree in a ROOT file, which is specific and clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_file_info or analyze_root_file, which could also extract metadata.

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 provides guidance on when to set allow_copy: true (if HTTP fails), indicating a preference for HTTP. But it does not mention when to use this tool versus other metadata-related sibling tools, such as when to use get_branch_histogram instead.

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