get_node

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It states the tool returns detailed info (children, resources) but does not disclose side effects (none apparent), authentication, or rate limits. Acceptable for a simple read tool but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant information. Front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every word adds value.

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 no output schema, description adequately covers return values (detailed info, children, resources). For a single-parameter tool, this is sufficient, though it could mention pagination or depth limits if applicable.

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 coverage is 100% and describes node_id as 'The node ID to inspect'. Description adds meaning by specifying the returned content includes children and resources, going beyond the schema definition.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific node including children and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like browse_nodes (browsing) and fetch_and_save (fetching/saving) by focusing on inspecting stored content.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to inspect what's already stored in a particular area of the knowledge graph.' This implies read-only inspection. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, though sibling context is available.

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