get_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes output defaults and filtering behavior, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any auth/error behavior.

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 three short sentences with no filler. Key behavior is front-loaded and every sentence adds 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?

For a metadata retrieval tool, the description covers the main output modes and filter combinations sufficiently. It does not describe the file_path write format or error behavior, but those are secondary and the schema supplies the parameter intent.

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 covers all four parameters, and the description adds useful semantics beyond the schema: it explains that default output is names+descriptions, that verbose=true yields full schemas, and that combining mcp_name and tool_name returns a single-tool schema. This helps an agent use the parameters correctly.

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 identifies the resource (connected MCPs) and the function (returning metadata), and the tool name reinforces the retrieval action. It is distinguishable from siblings like manage_mcps and execute_tool, but the phrasing omits an explicit verb such as 'Retrieves'.

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 explains output modes and parameter combinations (compact default, verbose=true, mcp_name+tool_name), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over related siblings such as search_tools, manage_mcps, or execute_tool. Usage is implied rather than directly specified.

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