get_nodes

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It implies read-only behavior ('Return'), but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or side effects. It adds tank-specific attribute details but lacks full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences for purpose and attributes, then a parameter line. Front-loaded with main action, no wasted 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?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers what nodes are returned and common attributes, plus the required parameter. Slightly lacking mention of optional attributes or pagination, but adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, but the description adds a brief explanation for the single parameter: 'network_id: Session id of the network to inspect.' This provides essential context beyond the schema's title and type.

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?

Description specifies the verb 'Return' and the resource 'nodes (junctions, tanks, reservoirs)' with their attributes. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_links (which returns pipe/valve/pump elements) by focusing on node types.

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 vs alternatives such as get_links or get_network_summary. The description only states what the tool does, not the context where it's appropriate.

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