get_metadata_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does state that the tool retrieves details including fields, which conveys a read-oriented operation. It does not disclose potential outcomes such as not-found behavior, error cases, or whether the response contains the full view object, but for a simple getter the implied read-only behavior is reasonably clear.

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 that front-loads the operation and the key included detail ('including its fields'). There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, and the description covers what the call returns at a useful level: details of the view and its fields. It could be more complete by noting the response form or that the view is identified by UUID, but the schema already documents the UUID parameter.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single view_id parameter is already described as 'The metadata view UUID' in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning about the parameter beyond reinforcing that the view is specific, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get details of a specific metadata view') and identifies the resource clearly, including that the fields are part of the result. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling 'get_asset_metadata_view', which may also return fields, so some ambiguity remains for an agent choosing between them.

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 that this tool is used when you need details for one known metadata view, and the required view_id parameter reinforces that. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this over 'list_metadata_views' or 'get_asset_metadata_view', nor does it mention that listing first may be needed to obtain a view_id.

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