ds_get_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that it returns a 'resolved target type' and 'AVU list', which is useful, but does not cover permissions, side effects, error cases, or whether metadata is inherited.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the second sentence adds return-shape context. No wasted words.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable summary but lacks details about return format, pagination, permissions, or behavior on missing paths. It is minimally adequate but could do more.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces the path semantics ('iRODS path data object or collection') without adding new format details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the full AVU metadata bundle for an iRODS path (data object or collection).' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like ds_list_avus (list only) by promising the full AVU bundle and resolved target type.

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?

It implies use when you need metadata for a single iRODS path but does not explicitly state when to use this over ds_list_avus or ds_search_metadata. There are no exclusion conditions or alternative recommendations.

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