function.metadata_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Query' implies a read-only operation, which is consistent, but the description does not mention any side effects, required permissions, or whether empty results are possible. It provides minimal behavioral insight beyond the tool's name.

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 a single sentence with minimal words, which is concise, but it does not front-load critical context or earn its place by providing necessary details. It avoids fluff but is too sparse to be considered well-structured for practical use.

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 complexity (3 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, return values, edge cases, or how this tool fits into the metadata management workflow, making it insufficient for correct agent invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameters have descriptions. The description only mentions 'key' as a parameter, ignoring 'session_id' and 'function_start'. With three required parameters, the description should explain each one's role and expected format, but it fails to do so, leaving the agent to infer meaning from naming alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and a clear resource ('function metadata by key'), which conveys the basic action. However, it does not differentiate this tool from its sibling 'metadata.query' (also present in the list) or 'function.metadata_query', and it offers no additional context about what 'metadata' refers to or how it relates to the broader domain.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'metadata.store', 'metadata.query', 'function.metadata_store', and 'function.metadata_remove', there is no indication of which tool to choose for different metadata operations or query scenarios.

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