node_integrations_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It is a simple read operation, but the description does not disclose any potential behaviors such as error handling (e.g., 404 if not found), authentication requirements, or whether the integration data is cached. It is minimal.

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, concise sentence with no fluff. It gets to the point quickly, which is good, though it could be slightly expanded to include usage guidance without losing conciseness.

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 that the tool is a simple get-by-id operation with one parameter, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it could benefit from noting that the UUID is a unique identifier and that errors may occur if not found, which would make it more complete.

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% as the schema already describes the single parameter as 'Integration UUID'. The description does not add much beyond that—it restates the UUID as a selector. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema is adequate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('node integration') identified by UUID. It is distinct from the sibling tools (node_integrations_list, node_integrations_create, etc.), though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other node_integrations tools. It does not mention that it is for fetching a single integration by UUID, which is implied by the name and parameter but not explicitly stated as an alternative to listing.

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