Get user metadata details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It lists the data returned (history, collections, etc.) but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, error conditions, or pagination behavior. It is adequate for a simple read operation.

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 a single sentence of 20 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

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?

Despite having only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential return data types. It is sufficient for a straightforward GET operation, though it omits details like whether the output includes general metadata (like ryot_get_metadata_details).

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% and the description only indirectly explains the parameter 'metadataId' by mentioning 'metadata item'. It does not provide details on format, source, or validation requirements, leaving the agent to infer the meaning.

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 action 'Get' and the resource 'user-specific Ryot state for a metadata item', listing specific data types returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ryot_get_metadata_details which likely returns general metadata info.

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 the tool is for retrieving user-specific state, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No comparisons to similar sibling tools are provided.

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