meta_get_node_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool is GET-only (read-only) and limited to flat fields on a single node. However, it omits authentication requirements, rate limits, and behavior for invalid or unsupported fields, which are relevant for a Meta Graph escape hatch.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence earns its place by explaining the tool's purpose as an escape hatch, which is essential context. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers purpose, scope, and read-only safety, and is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it. It lacks explicit output format and error behavior, but for an arbitrary-fields read tool the output is inherently variable and largely implied by the request. Overall it is adequately complete.

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?

All three parameters have rich schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the tool description need not add much. It reinforces the 'flat fields' and 'one node' concepts but adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read arbitrary flat fields from one Meta Graph node.' It clearly differentiates itself from the many schema-specific sibling tools by framing itself as an 'escape hatch' for newly released fields, so an agent knows exactly what it does and how it differs.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when a field is newly released and not yet covered by a fixed MCP schema update. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, such as preferring dedicated endpoints when fields are already supported, so it stops short of a full 5.

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