Query node metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns structural metadata rather than modifying content, and it specifies what information is returned. This sufficiently conveys the non-destructive, query-like nature of the tool.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant wording. The core behavior is stated first, and the usage guidance follows immediately. 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?

For a simple two-parameter metadata query with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the parameters' purpose, explains what the tool returns, and gives a practical usage scenario. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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%, and the description does not add significant detail about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It reinforces that the selector refers to a nested location, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents both parameters fully.

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 operation: 'Returns structural metadata about a location' and enumerates the exact fields returned (existence, type, depth, child count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nodiom_read, which return content, or nodiom_write, which modifies the file.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use this to check if a section exists before reading or writing to it.' This makes the primary context clear, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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