project.metadata_query

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It omits whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens when the project is missing, or any side effects. The bare description carries the full burden and fails completely.

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 extremely short at three words, but conciseness is not the same as underspecification. Every sentence should add value; here the single sentence is nearly redundant with the tool name. The brevity sacrifices necessary information.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description must compensate heavily. It does not. The agent is left with almost no understanding of how to use this tool among dozens of siblings. Completeness is severely lacking.

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%, yet the description adds zero meaning to the parameters. It does not explain what 'key' or 'project_id' represent, their expected formats, or how they are used. The description contributes nothing beyond the raw schema.

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 'Query project metadata.' essentially restates the tool name project.metadata_query. While it indicates a verb and resource, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like metadata.query or function.metadata_query. The purpose is vague and fails to specify the scope or what 'project metadata' entails.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for metadata operations (e.g., metadata.query, project.metadata_store, project.metadata_remove), the description offers no context for selection, prerequisites, or usage scenarios.

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