Get Node Information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the benefit of reducing chaining, which is consistent. No behavioral traits are contradicted or omitted beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information: what it does, how to use the parameter, and why it's beneficial. No extraneous words.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, output schema exists, annotations cover safety and idempotency), the description fully covers usage context. It explains the parameter choices and the value proposition. No gaps remain.

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 input schema covers both parameters (node, info_category) with 100% description coverage. The description adds value by listing the info_category enum values and explaining the default, as well as the purpose of consolidating information. Since schema is exhaustive, the description enhances understanding without being necessary.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'comprehensive information about a Maya node in a single call'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the comprehensive scope and reducing tool-call chaining, which sets it apart from more specific tools like attributes.get or mesh.info.

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 explicitly says 'Reduces tool-call chaining', implying it should be used when multiple node aspects are needed at once. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like using individual category tools for smaller queries. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions.

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