metadata_check

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the safety-relevant trait 'No writes', which tells the agent this is a read-only check. Beyond that it says nothing about failure behavior, whether the target file must already exist, or whether the check is blocking.

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?

Two clipped clauses, front-loaded with the verb and target, with the safety note last. Nothing is padded and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the tool has only one parameter. However, the meaning of source_md and the relationship to aso_validate_metadata remain unresolved, so an agent cannot call it confidently.

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 0% and the single parameter source_md has no description. The prose mentions apple-metadata.md but never clarifies whether source_md is a path, raw markdown content, or a directory, leaving the only required argument ambiguous.

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 (validate) and resource (apple-metadata.md) with a scoping parenthetical naming the checked concerns (fields + character limits). It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like aso_validate_metadata or metadata_listing_check, so an agent must infer which validation tool applies.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. With a sibling named aso_validate_metadata that also validates metadata, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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