Get nodes by id

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read operation. It adds context about what data is included (text, fills, geometry, connector endpoints) but does not disclose behaviors like depth-induced response size or potential errors. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides moderate additional context.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists deliverables, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 provides a good overview of the tool's purpose and key output fields, even without an output schema. The schema fills in parameter details, and the annotations confirm safety. Minor gaps remain, such as not mentioning depth limits or the shape of the full response, but overall it is sufficiently 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%, with both depth and nodeIds having detailed descriptions, including an example and guidance on obtaining node IDs from other tools. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (specific nodes), and lists concrete details (text, fills, geometry, connector endpoints). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_nodes or find_nodes, which are about listing or searching rather than fetching full details by ID.

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 phrase 'for specific nodes' implies that the tool is used when you already have node IDs, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like list_nodes or find_nodes. The sibling tools are not mentioned, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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