get_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' implies non-destructive access, but there is no mention of password-protected files, failure modes for malformed PDFs, or what happens with missing metadata keys.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the field list as useful detail. No filler, though it is arguably too sparse for a 2-parameter tool.

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 tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain input_path and note password support for encrypted documents. The return-field list is helpful context but the input contract is undocumented.

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 does not: neither the required input_path nor the optional password parameter is explained. The listed items are return values, not parameters.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read document metadata') and enumerates the exact fields returned, which helps an agent know what it gets. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling pdf_info, which plausibly overlaps in purpose.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as pdf_info or set_metadata. The agent must infer from the tool name alone whether this or pdf_info is appropriate.

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