explain_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that the tool is read-only and does not modify the scene, and that responses pass through a server-side cap. It also describes conditional field inclusion behavior. However, it omits error handling, permissions, or what happens with invalid paths, so transparency is partial.

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 compact and uses structured backtick formatting to list fields, making it scannable. The odd 'add-scene-context-selection-materials' phrase is not explained and could distract, but overall the description is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates the return fields and conditional additions, which gives a clear picture of the response structure. It also covers the response cap and read-only nature. The missing context is the meaning of the embedded tag and the expected behavior for edge cases, but for a summary tool this is fairly 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains include_params and max_params semantics, clarifying their conditional role. However, the two required parameters, ctx and node_path, are not described, relying on their self-explanatory names; this leaves a meaningful gap.

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 states the tool provides a 'single-node structured summary' and lists the exact fields returned, which distinguishes it from scene-level or geometry-specific tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_node_info or get_geo_summary, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for explaining a single node, but there are no explicit context signals, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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