get_node_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation but does not disclose potential error behaviors (e.g., node not found), rate limits, or side effects. For a simple status tool, it is somewhat adequate but lacks depth.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key information and does not waste any space.

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 tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality adequately. However, it does not describe the response structure or error scenarios, which would be useful for completeness.

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 parameter 'node' has 100% schema description coverage, including an example value. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates that the tool returns status for a specific node. The schema already conveys the parameter's purpose.

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 status for a specific node'), listing specific fields (CPU, memory, uptime). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_resource_status' (which likely covers other resource types) and 'list_nodes' (which only lists nodes without detailed status).

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 usage when detailed node status is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_resource_status' or 'list_nodes'. No exclusion criteria or prerequisite information is provided.

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