syncthing_file_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds nothing on top of them: no mention of folder/instance scoping, whether the file must exist, or how missing files are reported. With the safety profile already covered by annotations, the remaining behavioral burden is entirely unmet.

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?

Two words contain no waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; the fragment fails to convey any actionable information.

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?

A four-parameter, two-required read tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations detail in the description leaves the agent without the information needed to call it correctly.

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% across four parameters, and the description supplies no meaning for folder, file, fields, or instance. In particular the purpose of the 'fields' projection parameter and the multi-instance 'instance' selector are completely undocumented.

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?

"File metadata." is a tautological restatement of the tool name (syncthing_file_metadata) rather than a statement of what the tool does. It names no verb and gives no way to distinguish this from sibling syncthing_file_versions or syncthing_needed_files.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling handles related needs such as version history or needed files. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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