get_node_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get detailed properties' clearly implies a read-only inspection, and the listed property categories offer some transparency about what kind of data is returned. However, it does not describe the response shape, whether properties are normalized, or what happens for invalid node IDs, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds value: the action, the resource, the specificity, and the relevant property categories.

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 one-parameter getter, the description gives enough to select and invoke the tool. However, with no output schema and no return-value explanation, the agent must infer the exact shape of the 'detailed properties.' It covers the main content areas but omits response structure and error behavior, making it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 already fully documents the only parameter, nodeId, as 'Node ID to inspect', so baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces that the tool targets a specific node and lists the kinds of properties returned, but it adds no additional syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the 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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed properties of a specific node') and enumerates relevant property categories: fills, effects, auto-layout, and text styles. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like get_nodes_info, but the singular 'specific node' makes the intended target reasonably clear.

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 this is the tool to use when inspecting a single node's properties, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over related tools such as get_nodes_info, get_selection, or read_node_css. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusion conditions, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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