get_node_pin_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: that the listing is always FULL fidelity, that compact mode hides certain pins, and the exact return shape. It stops short of rich detail but adds genuine value over 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?

Purpose, differentiation, and return contract are front-loaded across three tight sentences with little waste. The 'Returns:' block is slightly verbose but justified since there is no output schema. Every sentence carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the full return shape, the addressing key, and the sibling tradeoff, while annotations cover safety. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 node_id, graph_name, blueprint_name, and the blueprint_path alias. The description adds only 'addressed by NodeGuid', which restates the node_id semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Dump ONE node's full pin detail') and enumerates exactly what is returned (every pin's name, direction, type, linked_to, default plus class/title/position/comment). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_graph_nodes, so an agent can choose without opening a schema.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: 'Use it instead of get_graph_nodes when the node is already known,' and backs it with the tradeoff (get_graph_nodes with compact=true hides unlinked default-less pins, and this costs fewer tokens). This is textbook when-to-use/when-to-use-alternative guidance.

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