cbs_get_metadata

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about return formats (CSV for info/structure/dimensions, JSON for endpoints/custom) and constraints like endpoint_name requirement, enhancing transparency without contradicting 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections and examples. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, some repetition occurs (e.g., the 'IMPORTANT' section slightly duplicates earlier info), making it a bit longer than necessary, but still effective.

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 complexity and that an output schema exists, the description covers all metadata types, explains return formats, and provides a complete workflow for dimension codes. It addresses the tool's role in relation to sibling tools and leaves no obvious gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by providing explanations, examples, and clarifying the interdependency between metadata_type and endpoint_name. It also includes a workflow example that enriches understanding beyond the 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 explicitly states it is a 'Unified metadata tool' and lists five specific metadata types (info, structure, dimensions, endpoints, custom), making the verb-resource pair very clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cbs_query_dataset and cbs_inspect_dataset_details which handle data queries or dataset inspection.

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 provides detailed guidance including a workflow for finding dimension codes for OData filtering, explicit requirements for endpoint_name, and example use cases. It effectively tells when to use each metadata_type, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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