metadata_node_get

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

The readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations already establish this as a safe read, so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of what the metadata payload covers, whether it can be empty, or any access constraints. It contributes zero behavioral context beyond the structured 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?

Three words, front-loaded with the verb and no filler. It is efficient but so terse that it reads as under-specified rather than well-structured.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations describing the return shape, the description should explain what metadata is returned and in what form. Since it does not, an agent cannot predict the response or confirm it called the right tool.

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 0%: the single required 'uuid' parameter has no description in the schema or the tool description. The description does not clarify whether this is the node's UUID, a host UUID, or another entity's, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb (Get) and resource (node metadata), which distinguishes it from metadata_user_get. However, it never explains what 'node metadata' actually contains or how it differs from the sibling nodes_get, leaving the agent to guess at the boundary.

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 on when to use this versus nodes_get or metadata_node_upsert, and no prerequisites mentioned. Usage must be fully inferred from the name alone, which is risky given several similarly-named node/metadata siblings.

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