get_asset_meta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining behavior. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose response format, permissions, error behavior, or whether all metadata types are always present. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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?

One sentence, no unnecessary words, front-loaded verb and purpose. Ideal for a simple getter tool.

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 (single parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks any mention of return value structure or edge cases like missing metadata. Since there are no annotations, additional detail on what the response looks like would improve completeness.

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 full coverage for the single 'id' parameter with a clear description. The tool's description doesn't add further parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 tool retrieves extracted EXIF/IPTC/XMP/file metadata for an asset. The verb 'Get' and the specific metadata types distinguish it clearly from sibling tools like get_asset or get_asset_content.

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 when metadata is needed and the specific metadata types give clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_asset or mention when not to use this tool, though this is not a major issue given the specificity.

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