nds_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly uses 'Return' to indicate a read-only operation and lists the exact metadata fields returned. It does not discuss potential side effects or prerequisites, but for a simple metadata retrieval tool this is adequate context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every phrase adds value: the verb, the resource, and the specific metadata items. It is concise and easy to parse.

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 is reasonably complete. It lists the key metadata categories returned, which is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call this tool. It does not detail the response structure, but that is not critical for a metadata summary tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is an empty object (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by specifying the content of the metadata returned, which is more than the schema provides. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource (NDS database metadata), enumerating specific items (data versions, nuclide counts, DB file hash). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on querying specific data or operations.

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 implies usage for obtaining general database metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nds_catalog or nds_schema. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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