arcana_stat

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 only says 'Get metadata' without explaining what metadata is included, whether it is a read-only operation, or any side effects. Lacks depth expected for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Very concise at two sentences with no fluff. However, it could benefit from structured formatting like bullet points. Still, it is efficient for a simple tool.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description might be minimally sufficient for a simple metadata retrieval tool with one parameter. However, it lacks details on what metadata is returned, and with multiple sibling tools, more context would improve completeness.

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. The description mentions 'uri: arcana:// URI' but adds no details about format, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema already states. Minimal value added.

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 'Get metadata for a resource', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like arcana_read (read content) or arcana_ls (list resources), so a higher score is not justified.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arcana_find or arcana_ls. The description simply states what it does without context of when it is appropriate.

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