get_extraction_metadata

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; 'Retrieve' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is useful. However, it says nothing about whether metrics are live vs. aggregated, over what time window, whether they are cached, or whether any permission is required to view telemetry. The output schema covers the response shape, which lowers the bar, but freshness and scope semantics are left implicit.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It is arguably too terse given the absence of usage context, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and a zero-parameter tool has limited surface area. Still, for a metrics/telemetry endpoint an agent needs to know data freshness, aggregation window, and whether this is a diagnostic aid for the other extraction tools, none of which is stated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning the description needs to compensate for. The description does state the scope is 'all extraction adapters', clarifying that no filtering argument exists or is expected.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a well-defined resource ('runtime performance telemetry and success metrics for all extraction adapters'). An agent can tell this is a diagnostic/observability tool distinct from the extraction siblings (extract_page_content, extract_entities, etc.), though it never names which sibling it complements or contrasts with.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as get_job_status or the extraction tools themselves. The phrase 'for all extraction adapters' implies fleet-wide diagnostics, but the agent must infer the trigger condition (health check, debugging failures) without any explicit when/when-not statement.

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