get_document_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the result is 'path-free' (indicating output shape) and it operates on a 'verified local snapshot' (implying a local, pre-verified data source). This gives the agent useful expectations without contradicting the 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, adds the 'path-free' qualifier, and closes with the snapshot scope. Every word contributes value; there is no padding, redundancy, or buried context.

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 three fully documented required parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly sufficient. It explains what is returned (metadata, path-free) and the required context (verified local snapshot), though it does not enumerate the metadata fields since there is no output schema. This is a minor gap rather than a critical omission for a tool of this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (library_id, snapshot_id, document_id) is already fully documented with types, patterns, and provenance. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so it correctly relies on the schema rather than repeating or enhancing it.

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 names a specific verb ('return'), a precise resource ('path-free document and asset metadata'), and a clear scope ('from one verified local snapshot'). This sets it apart from sibling tools that fetch content, excerpts, or tables of contents, since the focus on metadata 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 'from one verified local snapshot' implies a prerequisite that the snapshot must already exist and be verified, which offers some contextual guidance. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_excerpt or read_document_section, nor does it list exclusions or alternative tools.

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