get_node_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read-only lookup operation, states it returns data for exactly one node, and documents the accepted identifier formats (GUID or short object name). It does not mention error/not-found behavior, but the core behavioral contract is well covered for a query 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?

The description is longer than average but every section earns its place: purpose, when-to-use, input semantics, return structure, and a worked example. It is well organized with clear labels and front-loaded with the core lookup purpose. Minor redundancy around 'returns full pin data' and the later structure list prevents a perfect score.

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 4-parameter schema, the presence of an output schema, and the complexity of the sibling toolset, this description is complete. It covers use cases, alternatives, parameter formats, defaults, return structure, and provides a knowledge base pointer and example. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter: blueprint_name, node_id, graph_name, and include_hidden_pins. It also adds crucial meaning not present in the schema, such as node_id accepting GUIDs or short object names, and supplies an example call. This is exactly the compensation needed for an empty schema.

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 and resource: 'Fast single-node lookup — returns full pin data for exactly one node.' It also explicitly differentiates itself from get_blueprint_nodes, making the tool's distinct purpose unmistakable. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from nearby siblings.

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 directly states when to use this tool: 'Use this instead of get_blueprint_nodes when you already know a node's ID or name and just need its current pin state.' It also gives concrete example scenarios like verifying a connection or reading a default value. This is explicit routing guidance with no reliance on inference.

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