nodes_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – no note on error behavior for an unknown UUID, no indication of what the returned node contains, and no permission requirements. It restates rather than enriches.

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?

Four words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is arguably too terse for the gaps it leaves, but as a sizing/structure matter it is efficient and readable.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should at least signal what a successful response yields or how a missing UUID is handled. The annotations carry the safety profile and the schema covers the input, but return/error behavior is left entirely unspecified.

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 must compensate. Saying "by UUID" identifies the single parameter as the node's UUID identifier and confirms it is a lookup key rather than an array or filter, but it adds no format or validity details beyond what the schema's type/format already imply.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get node") qualified by lookup key ("by UUID"), so an agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from the similarly named metadata_node_get or nodes_list siblings, which is the only gap.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as nodes_list (for enumerating nodes) or metadata_node_get (for node metadata). The agent must infer the selection context from the name alone.

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