get_ds_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly lists what the tool returns, which gives an accurate picture of its read-only nature and output contents. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or 'no side effects', but the nature of a metadata getter and the explicit output list provide sufficient transparency for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the key idea ('One-call'). It efficiently lists the content and use cases without any redundant or extraneous wording. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and the lack of annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the returned data and typical use cases. It could be slightly more explicit about the format of the exports map or whether any schema details are included, but for a self-orientation tool, this is adequately complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no input schema to clarify, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The focus is entirely on the output, which is well described.

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 what the tool does: it returns metadata about the design system package, including version, schema version, component/capability/icon/hook counts, and exports map. The phrase 'One-call what am I talking to' gives a succinct purpose, and the content list distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific components, icons, or hooks.

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 explicitly mentions two use cases: CI version guards and self-orientation. This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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