Get Environment Node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns a 'Full node object with columns, config, metadata, and deployment state,' which goes beyond annotations where no contradiction is present.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff. Front-loaded with the key action.

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 the tool's straightforward nature (2 simple required params, output schema exists, no nested objects), the description provides sufficient detail about what the tool returns. The mention of 'Full node object with columns, config, metadata, and deployment state' covers the key aspects.

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%, and both parameters (environmentID, nodeID) are described in the schema with same text. The description repeats this info without adding new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get details of a specific node deployed in an environment.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_environment_nodes (which lists) and get_workspace_node (which is for workspace nodes, not environment 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_environment_nodes or get_environment. The context is clear for an agent, but no explicit guidance on when not to use it or when a sibling is more appropriate.

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