Get a node sub-resource

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this operation has no side effects. The description adds useful behavioral context by warning that system_* facets require the node to be online, and it makes the live nature of system logs/overview/stats explicit. No side effects or destructive behavior are suggested, consistent with 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that packs the core purpose and the main facet options without redundancy. It front-loads the action and object, lists the facets compactly, and includes the important online requirement 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 description explains what can be fetched and the online requirement for system_* facets, which is useful. However, it does not describe the shape of the response or clarify how pagination-related parameters like page, per_page, and search interact with the different resource types, especially the non-list or live-system facets.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including enums for resource and detail, pagination bounds, and search behavior. The tool description mostly restates the resource facet list rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, such as which parameters apply to which facets or how search/per_page behave for different resource types.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Fetch') and the object ('one facet of a node'), then enumerates the specific facets available, such as servers, allocations, backups, and system stats. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_node tool, which fetches the whole node.

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 conveys that this is for fetching a specific node subresource rather than the full node, and it notes that system_* facets require the node to be online. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools like get_server_resource or get_database_agent_host_resource, leaving some usage inference to the agent.

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