get_node

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return type ('all node properties, type-specific metadata') and performance tip ('faster than get_context'). However, it does not mention what happens if node not found or any rate limits. Still adequate for a read-only query.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections, bullet points, and a tip. However, some information is repeated (e.g., 'Get a single node' and later 'full details'). Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with high schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return value, and alternatives adequately. Missing details like error handling or edge cases would improve completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'semanticId'. The description adds context: 'Use this when you have a node ID from find_nodes, query_graph, or another tool.' This reinforces parameter purpose and provides examples of valid inputs.

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 a single node by its semantic ID with full metadata.' It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (node), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_context and get_neighbors by explaining when to use each.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this when you have a node ID from find_nodes, query_graph, or another tool.' It also provides alternatives: 'For relationships and code context, use get_context instead. For just the direct edges, use get_neighbors.'

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