add_validated_get_node

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It explains the node's execution pins and the purpose (checking validity before use), which gives some behavioral insight. However, it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether the node is added to the graph immediately, if there are any errors when the variable doesn't exist) or what the return value is, despite having an output schema. The provided KB reference is a pointer but not inline detail.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured, with a clear introduction, bullet-point explanation of execution pins, and a parameter list. The example is helpful and placed at the end. It could be slightly more compact, but it earns its sentences.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers the core purpose, parameters, and an example. It lacks details on error handling or exact behavior of cast_to_class, but the KB reference provides additional context. Overall, it's sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists all four parameters with brief explanations (blueprint_name, variable_name, cast_to_class, node_position) and provides an example that illustrates usage. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 that the tool adds a Validated Get node for safe object reference access, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also provides a brief explanation of what the node does (adds execution pins to check validity). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_is_valid_node or add_get_variable_node, though the unique name and explanation provide some distinction.

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 explains the purpose and context (preventing crashes from invalid references) and includes an example invocation. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., add_is_valid_node for simple checks), but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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