read-metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a read-only operation but does not mention return format, error behavior when a segment is missing, or any limits on image formats. The behavior beyond 'read' is completely unspecified.

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 no filler, but it is under-specified. While concise, it does not enough cover the tool's complexity (2 parameters, nested image object). The structure is fine, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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 2 parameters, one complex nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It provides no information about how to pass the image, what segments are supported, or what the return value looks like. The tool is not usable from this description alone.

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%. The description only hints at the 'segments' parameter through 'all or specified metadata segments'. It says nothing about the required 'image' parameter, which has a complex nested object structure (kind, url, data, path, buffer). The description fails to add any meaning to the schema beyond a vague hint.

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 verb 'read', the resource 'metadata segments', and the scope 'all or specified'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific segment readers (read-exif, read-xmp), as it can read all at once or a specified subset.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to read all or a selection of metadata segments. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer the segment-specific sibling tools, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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