Kong node info

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

The description discloses the tool performs a read-only GET request and lists the fields returned. No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error handling, but the behavior is sufficiently transparent for a simple read operation.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. No extraneous words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns by listing the key fields. It is complete for the agent to understand and invoke the tool 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?

There are no parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage). The description adds no param-level detail, but none is needed. The schema trivially covers everything, and the description lists the output fields, which is more than sufficient.

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 tool retrieves general node information, specifying the HTTP method and endpoint (GET /) and listing the fields returned (version, configuration, hostname, plugins, database mode). This distinguishes it from siblings like kong_node_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 the tool is for retrieving general node info but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, such as kong_node_status or other get tools. No exclusions or context are provided.

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