Read the stored metadata defaults

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does this well by specifying what is returned (metadata plus file path) and disclosing the absent-file edge case ('returns empty metadata'). The only unstated aspect is potential failure modes beyond absence, but for a read tool this is strong coverage.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and return values, and the second efficiently disposes of the no-file edge case. Every sentence 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is retured, the file involved, and behavior when absent. It could additionally point to quartz_defaults_set as the mutation counterpart, but that omission is minor given how self-contained the tool is.

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 parameter-semantics burden is trivial. Per the baseline for 0-param tools this scores 4: there is nothing to document, and the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning.

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 names a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource (the Quarto metadata defaults stored as _metadata.yml), and explicitly states the two return elements: the metadata and the path of the holding file.The resource and read-only nature clearly distinguish it from siblings like quartz_render, quartz_create_project, and the write-counterpart quartz_defaults_set.

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 read behavior is implied by the name and description, so an agent can infer this tool is for reading defaults, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose it over quartz_defaults_set or other siblings, and no exclusions or alternative routing are stated. Usage context is inferable but never made explicit.

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