get_node

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about traversal depth (up to 3) and enumerates relationship types, but does not describe return format, pagination, or error behavior 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 purpose and ref semantics are front-loaded, which is good. However, the description then lists 23 relationship types in a dense block, which is informative but bulky and could be summarized or moved to an output schema if one existed.

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 no output schema and low schema coverage, the description adequately explains what is returned: full node detail plus linked entities and their relationship types. It still lacks explicit usage guidance versus siblings and precise depth semantics, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially by explaining that ref accepts a resource id, IP, or unique name. It also states a maximum depth of 3, but does not explain what the depth parameter controls or how values 1–3 differ in traversal behavior.

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 states a specific operation: returning full detail of a single node and all linked entities up to depth 3. It clearly identifies the resource (one node) and scope, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like find_resource or scan_infrastructure.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Full detail of one node plus everything linked to it,' which suggests this is for deep inspection of a single known node. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives such as find_resource or infra_summary.

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