meta_describe

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

The description transparently explains what the tool returns (parameters, body schema, response codes, verification status) and implies it is a read-only metadata operation. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it provides sufficient behavioral context without contradictions.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct role: purpose, output contents, and usage context. It is front-loaded with the core function and uses no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no enums, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it, leaving no gaps for the 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 input schema provides 100% coverage with a detailed description for `method_id`. The description does not add new semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage. No additional parameter information is needed.

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 it provides the full contract for a single PrismHR method, including parameters, body schema, response codes, and verification status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like meta_capabilities (which lists methods) and meta_find (which searches) by focusing on detailed documentation for one method.

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 explicitly tells the agent to call this before `prismhr_call` to know the arguments, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context is well-implied given the sibling tools.

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