get_metadata

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

The description indicates a read-like operation returning metadata or an error, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or handling of missing metadata. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden, which is only partially met.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, no redundancy, and quickly conveys the tool's purpose and return value. Every word is necessary.

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 no parameters and there is an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return value. However, it could be slightly improved by specifying if the metadata is always present or if null/undefined can be returned.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter details. It does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 retrieves document metadata/properties and lists examples like title, author, subject. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as get_document_info, which may serve a similar purpose, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 usage when document metadata is needed but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like get_document_info or get_document_statistics. No when-not-to-use criteria are mentioned.

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