bb_get_file_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a read-only metadata operation and hints at behavior through 'existence checks,' but it does not explain behavior for nonexistent files, revision semantics, authentication needs, or error cases. Adequate but not rich.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and return fields; the second adds practical use cases. Every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully names the three returned metadata fields and gives use cases. But it omits the meaning of the 'at' parameter and any invocation context for the repository identifiers, making it only partially complete for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It does not explain projectKey, repoSlug, path, or at, nor their formats or relationships. Only the word 'file' vaguely implies what path refers to, leaving the required parameters largely undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Get metadata about a file' and enumerates exact returned fields (name, parent directory, last-touching commit). This clearly differentiates it from content-returning siblings like bb_get_file and bb_raw_file, and its 'existence checks and audit trails' purpose further distinguishes it.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for existence checks and audit trails,' giving clear context for when to select this tool. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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