dynamic_list_metadata_available_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the result is RAG/metadata-known and not from the live UI form, which is useful. But it does not describe the return shape, side effects, or dependency on parameters like rag_snapshot, leaving some behavior implicit.

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 sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the exclusion of the live UI form is a valuable clarification that 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?

The tool has three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must do substantial work. It clarifies the source of fields but leaves parameter semantics and expected outputs unexplained, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly maps 'metadata object' to the 'object' parameter, leaving 'session_id' and 'rag_snapshot' unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to know how to populate the parameters correctly.

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 ('Return') and names a clear resource ('RAG/metadata-known fields for a metadata object'). It also distinguishes itself from the live UI settings form, which separates it from sibling tools like dynamic_list_settings_available_fields.

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 states what this tool does not do ('does not inspect the live UI settings form'), giving a clear when-not-to-use signal. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool to use for live UI settings, so the guidance is slightly incomplete.

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