Get Document Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of what metadata is returned, whether it is cached, or what fields it exposes.

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?

Three words is not conciseness but under-specification; the sentence does not earn its place because it carries no information beyond the tool name and title. Compare the calibration low example where 'Process' scored 2 for the same reason.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn what this call returns, yet it explains nothing about the returned metadata shape or contents. For a zero-argument utility that other tools reference, this leaves a notable gap.

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 the single optional coordinate_system parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema itself (enum values, auto-detection behavior, origin semantics). The description contributes nothing to parameter meaning, but per the high-coverage baseline a 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get document metadata' essentially restates the tool name and title ('Get Document Info') without adding specificity. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like get_document_structure, get_runtime_status, or get_artboards, so an agent cannot tell what kind of metadata is returned.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no conditions described. Interestingly, the input schema for the sibling parameter mentions calling get_document_info to check the active coordinate system, but that routing hint appears in another tool's schema rather than in this description.

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