get_td_node_parameters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral detail: output can be concise/detailed and the limit parameter caps the formatted output. However, it does not describe error behavior for invalid node paths or the structure of the returned parameter data, though the verb 'get' implies a read-only operation.

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 one short sentence with the main action front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical 'detailLevel+limit supported' is telegraphic but compact and communicates the key formatting-related parameters without wasting words.

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 tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must supply most of the context. It covers the formatting dimension but omits what a returned parameter set contains, error/edge behavior, and how this tool relates to sibling tools. It is minimally viable rather than fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including nodePath, detailLevel, limit, and responseFormat. The description only mentions detailLevel and limit, adding no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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+resource: 'Get node parameters,' and adds that it supports 'concise/detailed formatting,' so the core action is identifiable. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_td_nodes or update_td_node_parameters by the word 'parameters,' but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them and leaves 'node parameters' undefined.

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 statement of when to use this tool instead of get_td_nodes (listing nodes), update_td_node_parameters (modifying parameters), or get_td_node_errors. No exclusions, alternatives, or preconditions are mentioned, so an agent must infer applicability solely from the tool name.

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