get_cad_scene_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation and 'source-bound facts' hints at provenance, but it omits error behavior, permission requirements, and what 'pre-semantic' means.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is structurally efficient. However, brevity comes at a cost: 'pre-semantic' and 'source-bound' are unexplained jargon, leaving the sentence cryptic rather than fully earned.

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?

Although an output schema exists to cover return values, the lack of annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and two required parameters leave too much unspecified for reliable invocation. The description does not explain how to construct a valid call or what a 'pre-semantic node' represents.

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 neither required parameter, graph_path nor node_id, is mentioned in the description. The phrase 'one exact ... node' weakly implies a node identifier, but no semantics are given for either parameter.

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 ('Read') and singular resource ('one exact pre-semantic node'), adding a hint about return content ('source-bound facts'). It is clear enough to identify the operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_cad_scene_nodes or get_evidence_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_cad_scene_nodes, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The singular 'one exact' node implies lookup by an identifier, but that is left to inference.

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