get_evidence_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Immutable reader facts' hints that the read is side-effect-free and the data fixed, but it says nothing about behavior when the node is missing, permission or graph-state requirements, or what allow_standalone changes.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, but the brevity is closer to under-specification than to disciplined economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter coverage the description should compensate and does not. The agent is left without the graph scoping and standalone-flag semantics needed to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters (graph_path, node_id, allow_standalone), and the description explains none of them. Only a loose mapping between 'evidence node' and node_id can be inferred; the meaning and effect of allow_standalone is completely undocumented.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one exact evidence node'), and the word 'exact' signals single-node retrieval as opposed to the sibling list_evidence_nodes, which it never names. An agent can infer the purpose without opening the schema, though the sibling contrast is only implicit.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative, list_evidence_nodes. The singular 'one exact' hints at the distinction but leaves the agent to infer when to fetch a single node versus enumerate them.

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