get_file_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions using 'obstore's head operation for efficient metadata retrieval' and 'without downloading,' implying read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or potential errors. This is moderately transparent but lacks full disclosure.

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 concise with a clear bullet list for args, returns, and an example. No redundant information, every sentence adds value.

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 metadata retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter format, and return fields through the example. Missing edge cases like error handling or permissions, but overall complete for the task.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates well: it explains the path parameter accepts S3 URIs or relative paths (account_id/product_id/file) and provides an example. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's simple 'string' type.

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 clearly states 'Get metadata for a specific file without downloading it.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools (list_product_files, search, etc.) which focus on listings or different entities.

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 implies usage for efficient metadata retrieval without downloading, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternative tools like get_product_details. Given the tool's specificity, this is adequate but could be improved.

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