get_node_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the dual return shape (dict keyed by class_type when batching vs. direct schema for a single class_type) and the 24-choice truncation cap with its escape hatches.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then two tight paragraphs on batching and combo browsing. Slightly redundant in restating the batch-vs-single behavior twice, but every sentence is actionable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description usefully documents the two return shapes. For a read-only lookup tool the coverage is strong; only edge behavior (e.g., unknown class_type) is unaddressed, which is minor.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: class_types is explained with a concrete example and its keyed return shape, class_type is contrasted against it, choices_filter is given syntax ('substring' or 'input:substring', case-insensitive), and max_choices is tied to raising the cap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieves the full input/output schema (slot names, types, widget defaults/ranges, combo choices, tooltips) for node classes. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the close siblings search_nodes and search_node_packs, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: batch lookups via class_types to fetch many in one call instead of one call per node, and use choices_filter/max_choices to browse combo lists beyond the default 24. It does not say when to prefer this over search_nodes, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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