Get document file metadata

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the scope of the metadata retrieved and clarifying what is excluded, which helps set expectations about the result. It does not describe error conditions or edge cases, but for a read-only metadata getter the added context is strong.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the concrete metadata fields, and the second immediately provides the exclusion and alternative. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns and how it differs from get_document. It lacks explicit return-structure details or parameter clarification, but the enumerated metadata fields largely compensate for the missing output schema. A slightly more complete description would connect 'id' to the document identifier.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the 'id' parameter. It never explicitly states that 'id' is the Paperless document ID or how it relates to the document resource. While the tool name and title make this inferable, the description itself adds no direct parameter meaning beyond what the generic 'id' integer property already implies.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Technical file metadata for a document') and enumerates exactly what it returns: checksums, byte sizes, MIME type, stored filename, archived PDF/A presence, and embedded PDF metadata. It actively differentiates itself from get_document by explicitly excluding tags/correspondent, so an agent can disambiguate without inspecting either schema.

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 names the sibling alternative explicitly: 'Not the Paperless tags/correspondent — use get_document for those.' This states both when not to use the tool and which tool to use instead, giving clear routing guidance with no reliance on inference.

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