Get Document METS

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

Annotations already provide clear behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds no behavioral context, but does not contradict annotations.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core function, though it could be slightly expanded without becoming verbose.

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 lack of output schema and the richness of annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what METS is, which could be helpful for an unfamiliar agent. The context from schema and annotations partially compensates.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (collId and id), so the description does not need to add parameter information. It adds no additional semantics 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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'METS metadata', and the context 'for a document'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like transkribus_doc_get_metadata and transkribus_doc_get_fulldoc by specifying the METS format.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large sibling list, information about when to prefer this over other doc_get_* tools (e.g., for XML metadata retrieval) would be beneficial.

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