remnawave_metadata_get_node

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

The description explicitly notes '(read)', indicating no side effects and safe repetition. While annotations are absent, this basic behavioral disclosure is sufficient. However, it lacks details on response format or potential errors.

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 very short, which is concise, but it omits important details that could be added without significant length. It lacks structure such as parameter explanations or usage examples.

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?

Given no output schema and minimal description, the tool is incomplete. The description does not explain what metadata is returned, how parameters affect behavior, or how it relates to other node-related tools.

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%, so description must explain parameters. It does not mention any of the four parameters (payload, confirmToken, responseMode, mutationApproved), leaving their purposes entirely undefined.

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 'metadata.get_node (read)' clearly indicates a read operation to get node metadata. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('node metadata'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'remnawave_metadata_upsert_node' (write) and 'remnawave_metadata_get_user' (different resource).

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 tool versus alternatives like 'remnawave_nodes_get' or 'remnawave_metadata_upsert_node'. No context on prerequisites or when read is appropriate.

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