get_object_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It indicates a read operation (getting metadata) but does not disclose authorization needs, error handling for non-existent objects, or any side effects. Basic transparency is present.

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 concise sentences: the first enumerates what the tool returns, the second gives the usage context. No redundant information, and the structure is 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 no output schema and a single parameter, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and when to use it. It could mention the output format, but overall it is complete for a metadata retrieval 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 only parameter 'full_name' is fully described in the schema with an example and explanation. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 clearly states it retrieves detailed metadata including requisites, tabular sections, forms, layouts, and movements. It specifies the resource (1C object structure), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_object_attributes.

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 mentions using it for analyzing object structure, which implies a use case. However, it provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as using more specific tools like get_object_attributes for individual metadata parts.

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