get_node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the '[READ]' tag is redundant. The genuinely useful disclosure is that the default response is a compact view while full:true returns the raw, large panel response — a real behavioral trait about payload size and shape that goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the action and lookup key, then the endpoint and response-mode hint. The '[READ] GET /api/nodes/:uuid' line is mostly redundant with the tool name and annotations, but costs little and does not bury the useful content.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers the key question an agent would have — what the default response looks like versus the full one. Missing are any error semantics (e.g., behavior for a nonexistent UUID) and sibling routing, but those are minor for this complexity level.

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 50%, and the description's 'pass full: true for the raw panel response' largely restates what the schema already says ('Return the raw panel response (large)'). The uuid parameter's format/pattern is fully specified by the schema, so the description adds little beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get node by UUID') and pins the retrieval key, which separates it from the list-oriented sibling get_nodes. It does not, however, differentiate itself from same-resource siblings like get_node_metadata, get_node_usage, or get_node_plugins, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling is named despite a crowded set of node-related getters. The only implied context is 'you have a UUID', which comes from the schema itself rather than the description.

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