ipt_get_metadata_form

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'get' and the phrase 'editable fields' imply a read-only operation, but this is not explicitly stated. The description does not disclose error behavior, response format, or any side effects. It adds some context (returns names and current values) but lacks explicit safety guarantees, which is a notable gap given zero annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose before the list of sections. The section list is long but necessary and appropriately placed. There is no filler or repetition. It could be slightly more compact by grouping sections, but it is efficient for the information conveyed.

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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description gives a high-level idea of the return (editable fields with names and current values) but does not specify the structure (e.g., array vs. object, nesting). The list of sections is helpful, but the lack of a precise return format and any mention of error conditions leaves some ambiguity. It is adequate for basic use but could be more complete.

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 only describes the shortname parameter (50% coverage). The description compensates for the section parameter by listing all valid values (basic, contacts, etc.), which is not present in the schema. This provides actionable guidance for the section parameter. The shortname is already described in the schema, so no duplication is needed. The added list makes the parameter semantics strong.

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 states a specific action (get editable fields) on a specific resource (metadata section) and names the companion tool (ipt_set_metadata_fields). It also enumerates all valid sections, which distinguishes it from siblings like ipt_get_metadata (full metadata retrieval) and ipt_get_draft_eml. This is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 phrase 'to use with ipt_set_metadata_fields' clearly indicates this is a preparatory step for editing metadata, implying it should be used when the agent needs to know editable fields before setting them. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough to route the agent correctly. A brief contrast with ipt_get_metadata would push it to 5.

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