get_assistant_metadata

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

Description implies a read-only operation with no side effects but doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or exactly what 'complete' entails. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides minimal behavioral context beyond the return contents.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. No extraneous information. Every word 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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately specifies the tool's purpose and what it returns (version, features, configuration). It is complete for a simple metadata retrieval tool.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. No additional semantics needed.

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 'complete MetaAPP MCP Server metadata' including 'version, features, and configuration', using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_resource_tree' by focusing on server-level metadata.

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 explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives. However, the tool's simplicity (no parameters) makes usage self-evident for retrieving server metadata. A brief note on preferred contexts would improve clarity.

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