get_node_doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the internal process (querying the plugin, retrieving from an external markdown source) and the prerequisite of a Houdini connection. It does not cover failure modes or return format details, but the provided behavior is transparent enough for a read-oriented 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value: what it does, how it works, and a key requirement. No redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is fetched, the process, and a requirement. It does not detail return values or error scenarios, but the markdown retrieval is sufficiently implied.

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 has one parameter 'path' with no description, so the description must compensate. It implies path refers to the scene node path, but does not specify path syntax or examples. This gives partial meaning but lacks precision.

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 the tool fetches documentation for a scene node in one call, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling doc tools like search_docs and get_doc by focusing on scene nodes and consolidating the process into a single call.

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 provides clear context: it is for retrieving documentation of a scene node and requires a Houdini connection. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for most cases.

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