get_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the payload shape and the cost tradeoff versus the full tree, which is real value beyond structured fields. It stops short of saying whether the tree recurses into descendants or only covers the given node, and says nothing about error or permission behavior.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and what is excluded, followed by the routing guidance. Every clause earns its place, including the token-economics justification.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return content, exclusions, and the intended workflow well enough to call it confidently. The remaining gap is the scope of 'tree' — whether descendants are included and how deep — which matters for a tool whose whole purpose is structural overview.

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 both parameters (fileKey, nodeId) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific verb+resource (returns a lightweight node tree) and enumerates exactly which fields come back (id, name, type, bounds) and which are omitted (styles/fills/text). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_node_tree, so an agent can route correctly without inspecting either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use recipe: first survey a large frame to understand structure, then make targeted get_node_tree calls on the branch you need. The alternative tool is named along with the condition that selects it, and the token-saving rationale is stated.

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