get_sutta_meta

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 lists the return fields (metadata contents), which is some behavioral disclosure, but it does not explicitly mention read-only nature, error behavior, or limitations. The verb 'get' implies non-mutating but lacks explicit detail.

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?

A single concise sentence with a colon and comma-separated list of fields, front-loaded with the verb. No filler, every word earns its place.

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 only 2 simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately lists the primary return fields. However, it omits details like field formats, default language behavior, or how this relates to sibling tools, leaving minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100%: both parameters have descriptions (uid example, language for blurb/title). The description does not add semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, 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 uses a specific verb 'Lấy' (get) with a resource 'metadata của một sutta' and enumerates the exact metadata fields returned (name, blurb, difficulty, parallels count, translations, link). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sutta (full text) and get_parallels (parallels only).

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 the tool (when metadata is needed) but provides no explicit alternatives or conditions like 'use get_sutta for full text'. Guidance is intuitive from the name and list, but not directly stated.

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