inspect_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'inspect' implies no side effects. It could be improved by confirming no modifications or required permissions.

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 well-structured with categories of returned data and a clear params section. It is longer than necessary but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly tightened without losing information.

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 output schema exists (handling return structure), the description covers purpose, data categories, and param constraints. It lacks details on error handling or limits, but is sufficient for selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds critical constraint: file_path must be an exported JPEG or TIFF. This compensates for the missing schema description, though format or path examples could further aid.

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 inspects EXIF metadata, classifies by sensitivity, and lists specific categories (GPS, serial numbers, camera settings, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like read_exif (raw EXIF) or strip_metadata by adding classification and privacy recommendations.

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 implies usage for inspecting exported JPEG/TIFF metadata with sensitivity classification. It does not explicitly mention when not to use (e.g., for raw files) or alternatives like read_exif, but the context is clear and the tool's unique value (classification) is evident.

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