nt_get_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires an active connection, or what happens if the topic does not exist. The response format is given, but behavioral traits like error handling or side effects are not mentioned.

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 very short and to the point, with no wasted words. It includes the response format, which is useful. However, it is under-specified, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness issue.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. However, it lacks context about the tool's role among many siblings, and the output schema is not shown to the agent, so the description should explain the response more. The lack of usage guidance and behavioral transparency makes it incomplete.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'topic' with no description, and the description does not elaborate on its meaning beyond the name. It does not specify the expected format (e.g., string identifier, path) or any constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 states it returns metadata for a topic, which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like nt_get or nt_get_multiple, which likely also retrieve data. The response format is shown, but the purpose could be more specific about what 'metadata' includes.

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. It does not mention that nt_get_multiple might be used for multiple topics, or that nt_connection_info might be relevant for connection status. The description lacks any context about typical use cases or exclusions.

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