metadata_node_get

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get metadata' implies a read operation but does not state whether it is side-effect free, what the response shape is, or whether authentication or permissions are required. The description adds no insight beyond the literal action.

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 entire description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource, which is ideal for a one-parameter getter. No wasted space or filler.

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 one-parameter getter, the description plus full schema coverage is minimally adequate. However, the absence of an output schema and any guidance on return format or distinguishing from sibling metadata tools means the agent is left with incomplete context. It works for a trivial call but could be more informative.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the uuid parameter described as 'Node UUID' in the schema itself. The description's 'specific node' phrasing aligns with this but adds no new semantic detail about the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the complete schema 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('metadata for a specific node'), making it distinct from sibling metadata_user_get and metadata_node_upsert. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from nodes_get, the 'metadata' qualifier provides enough specificity for basic disambiguation. A higher score would require naming an alternative or clarifying scope boundaries.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like nodes_get, metadata_user_get, or metadata_node_upsert. With a large sibling list containing many similar getters, the absence of any usage context leaves the agent to infer the appropriate selection. This is a clear gap.

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