Stat

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by noting that metadata is 'redacted', implying some content may be hidden. This goes beyond what annotations provide, but does not detail other behaviors like rate limits or error conditions.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the purpose and uses technical terms appropriately. 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?

The tool has a simple interface (1 parameter) and an output schema (not shown). The description suffices for normal usage, but could mention what metadata fields are returned or the output format. However, given the output schema likely covers return values, the description is reasonably 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 description explains that the 'path' parameter can accept either a file path or an opaque @p_<id> reference. This adds meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema, which has 0% coverage. The description compensates for the schema's lack of parameter description.

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 the tool shows redacted metadata for a path or opaque reference. The verb 'show' and resource 'metadata' are specific, and the mention of both path and opaque reference distinguishes it from siblings like redctx_read (content) and redctx_list (listing).

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or refer to other tools. The description only states what it does without context for selection.

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