Get metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description isn't responsible for that. It adds the specific fields returned (size, modified time, id), but does not disclose behavior around deleted items or error handling. It provides minor added context beyond annotations.

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 entire description is one short sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then gives illustrative fields. No filler, appropriately sized.

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 simple read-only metadata tool, the description covers the core purpose but omits the include_deleted parameter and its effect. With no output schema, some indication of return format would be helpful, but it's not critical. Overall, it's adequate but has gaps.

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 50% (path is documented, include_deleted is not). The description adds no parameter information, failing to explain the purpose of include_deleted. It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 'Get' and resource 'metadata' for a single file or folder, distinguishing it from list_folder which enumerates contents. Also lists example fields, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 'for a single file or folder' gives clear context that this tool is for a specific path, not a listing operation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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