sd_get_node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the reference being 'current-session', which clarifies that the node must reside in the active session, complementing the annotations without redundancy. No contradiction with annotations.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key action ('Read one node') and scoping information. It could arguably be expanded, but for the purpose of concise clarity it is efficient and well-structured, earning a 4.

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?

Despite having an output schema and strong annotations, the description is too thin given the tool's complexity and the large sibling set. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session), how a node reference is obtained, or how this tool relates to the many other node-related tools. The description alone would not sufficiently guide an AI to correctly select and invoke the tool in varied contexts.

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%, and the description does not enumerate or explain any parameters besides referencing 'structured current-session node reference', which vaguely hints at the 'node' parameter but says nothing about 'detail' or the specific fields within NodeRef (e.g., package_url, graph_identifier). The schema property names are self-explanatory but the description does not compensate for the 0% coverage, leaving parameter meaning underspecified.

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 action (Read) and the resource (one node), with an explicit scope qualifier ('by a structured current-session node reference'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sd_list_graph_nodes (listing multiple nodes) and sd_get_active_graph (reading the active graph), making it unambiguous that this fetches a single node.

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 you need to read exactly one node and have a structured reference within the current session. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity versus siblings like sd_get_graph_snapshot (which might also retrieve node data in a different form).

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