Metadata Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the '(no writes)' note is largely redundant. The description does confirm the operation is a pure validation and outlines the return shape, but it adds little behavioral context beyond the structured fields (e.g., what happens on a missing file or how problems are ordered).

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines: what it does, when to use it, what it returns. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 single-parameter, read-only validator with an output schema and full annotations, everything an agent needs to select and call it is present; the return shape is even summarized despite the output schema carrying it.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage ('Path to apple-metadata.md'). The description adds no format or path-resolution details beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas 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?

States a specific verb (Validate) and resource (apple-metadata.md) plus the exact validation scope: required fields and character limits. It also names the two nearest siblings and what they cover, so the agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit 'Use when: checking a single metadata file' plus direct alternatives for other cases (metadata_listing_check for listing.json, aso_validate_metadata for the ASO outputs folder). When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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