inspect_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'Inspect' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the listed content (layout, dimensions, children) hints at the return scope. However, it does not disclose behavior such as the meaning of maxDepth, handling of invalid node IDs, or whether a subtree is fully traversed—important details for an agent invoking the tool.

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?

A single, tightly packed sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place by naming the inspected content. This is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 covers the core purpose and the main output categories, and the schema fills in parameter details like maxDepth's default. Still, it could be more complete by mentioning that maxDepth controls how deep children are inspected, which is a meaningful behavioral detail for a tool without annotations or an output schema.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents nodeId and maxDepth. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema states; it only reaffirms that inspection is by ID.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and names the exact resource ('any node') plus the attributes covered (properties, layout settings, dimensions, children). This clearly conveys the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_selection or find_nodes.

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 usage when a node ID is available and detailed node information is needed, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools such as get_selection, find_nodes, or get_design_context. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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