Get a node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Fetch' aligns with that. It adds context about the response contents (location and backup configuration), but does not detail potential side effects or additional behavior beyond what annotations cover.

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?

One sentence, direct, and free of filler. The key information (verb, resource, required identifier, and relevant response details) is packed in without redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview of what is returned (location and backup configuration). It could be more explicit about the summary vs. full detail levels and potential error cases, but for a simple single-node fetch 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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (node and detail). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, mainly confirming 'node' is a UUID and hinting that the response includes location and backup configuration, but it does not elaborate on the summary vs. full distinction beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('one node'), and the identifier required ('UUID'), distinguishing it from listing tools like calagopus_list_nodes. Also mentions the included related data (location and backup configuration), adding useful specificity.

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 implies the condition for use: you need a specific node UUID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools provide enough context that an agent can infer when to use this tool versus list_nodes or get_node_resource.

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