Get org node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Get' aligns with a read-only operation. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as error handling, return format, or what the openWorldHint implies, so it provides limited value beyond annotations.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the action 'Get', and no wasted words. The structure is optimal for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a low-complexity read-only get, the description is functional, but it leaves gaps around org_id, return value (no output schema), and how this differs from org_get or org_nodes_list. These omissions make it only minimally complete for an agent.

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 the description only says 'by id' without explicitly naming node_id or explaining the role of the optional org_id. The agent must infer that node_id is the identifier, and org_id's purpose remains 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 'Get one org control-plane node by id' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like org_get (getting an org) and org_nodes_list (listing nodes). It explicitly states the operation scope (one node by id).

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 or alternative guidance. The description implies fetching a single node when an id is available, but it does not contrast with org_nodes_list or mention when to prefer this tool over others.

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