get_xmp_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides little: 'get' implies a read, but there is nothing on permissions, what happens when an item has no XMP data, or the shape of 'raw' output. It is a bare label, not a 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?

A single front-loaded phrase with no padding or repetition. It earns its brevity but sits at the edge of under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only place the return value could be described, and it says nothing beyond 'raw XMP metadata'. An agent cannot tell what fields, format, or error conditions to expect.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents nodeId as 'Project item nodeId'. The description adds only that the item should carry XMP metadata, which is the baseline expectation at full coverage.

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?

Specific verb and resource, clearly the read counterpart to set_xmp_metadata; only the opaque 'Raw' qualifier keeps it from a 5.

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?

No indication of when to call this versus get_project_item_info or the set_xmp_metadata sibling, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to the writer tool.

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