get_metaobject

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses a key behavioral trait: truncation of field values longer than 120 characters. It also states the tool returns specific fields, implying it is a read-only operation. However, it omits details like error handling or required permissions, which are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 two sentences that efficiently deliver purpose, return details, behavior, and usage hint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple fetch tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, important behavior (truncation), and prerequisite discovery step. It provides enough context for an agent to correctly invoke the 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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage for the 'id' parameter, including a description and example. The tool description does not add significant new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 action ('Fetch a single metaobject by GID') and the specific fields returned ('display name, handle, type, publishable status, and all of its field values'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_metaobjects and update_metaobject by focusing on retrieval and return details.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to use list_metaobjects first to discover GIDs, providing clear prerequisite guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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