read-xmp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action and the extended option but does not explain what happens if no XMP metadata exists, what output format to expect, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentence with no redundant or filler content. It immediately communicates the core purpose and the key option, making it easy to parse.

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?

This is a simple read tool with only two parameters, so a short description might suffice. However, it lacks context on the extended XMP feature, error behavior, or return value expectations. Given no output schema and no annotations, more detail would help complete the picture for an agent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the 'extended' boolean by mentioning 'option for extended XMP segments', but the 'image' parameter is only loosely referenced as 'from an image' with no functional detail. The schema itself provides structure, but the description adds minimal insight beyond the extended flag.

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 'Read' and resource 'XMP metadata', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like read-exif and read-iptc by naming XMP explicitly. It also mentions the extended XMP option, adding scope.

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?

Usage is implied by the description and tool name—one would use this when needing XMP metadata—but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over read-metadata or other sibling tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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