get_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains that output changes depending on object_path and detail, and it lists the kinds of metadata returned. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error conditions for missing/unpacked directories, but the core behavior is competently disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the resource first, then gives two conditional behaviors and a modifier. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no filler or repetition.

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 moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and the detailed parameter explanations, the description is complete for selecting and invoking the tool. An agent knows what to expect for each combination of object_path and detail without needing to open the schema.

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, and it does. It explains object_path with a concrete format ('Тип/Имя'), explains the effect of detail=true, and the required dir_path is naturally tied to the 'unpacked catalog' resource. Every parameter gains meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 the tool returns metadata for an unpacked catalog and distinguishes the two main use cases: a summary when object_path is absent and per-object metadata when it is provided. This makes it easy for an agent to understand what resource and operation the tool targets, and to separate it from siblings like list_objects or read_module.

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 gives clear conditional usage guidance: use with object_path for a specific object, without it for a summary, and with detail=true for a full type-by-type list. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it is one step below fully explicit usage routing.

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