storage_get_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does deliver one genuinely useful behavioral fact: a missing object returns exists:false rather than erroring, which shapes how the agent handles misses. It lists the returned metadata fields, but says nothing about read-only semantics, required IAM permissions, per-object vs per-bucket cost, or whether tokens/metadata are redacted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the returned-field list is packed efficiently. The fragment construction and the dangling 'or exists:false' clause make the grammar slightly ambiguous, costing it a point on structure rather than length.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: which object, which fields come back, and what happens when it is absent. Only permission and read-only expectations are unaddressed, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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%; both 'path' (with an example) and 'bucket' (with a default) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no path syntax, bucket-resolution, or cross-bucket guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource ('one Storage object') and enumerates the returned fields (content type, size, timestamps, custom metadata, download tokens), so an agent knows this is a per-object metadata read. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings like storage_read or storage_list, and the telegraphic fragment style ('The metadata of... or exists:false') lacks an explicit verb.

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?

There is an implicit usage hint in 'or exists:false', telling the agent this doubles as an existence probe for a single known path. However, no alternatives are named — nothing says to prefer storage_list for discovering objects or storage_read for content — and no preconditions are stated, so the when-to-use reasoning is left to inference.

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