node_get

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. Merely stating 'Get full details' implies a read operation but omits important traits like potential errors (e.g., node not found), authorization requirements, or rate limits. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise with one short sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While front-loaded, it does not earn its place by being sufficiently informative.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description lacks parameter semantics and usage guidelines. For a simple tool with many siblings, the description is incomplete and forces the agent to rely on external knowledge.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter information. It does not explain what node_id or project_id represent, leaving the agent to guess. This is a critical gap for correct usage.

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 uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (node), clearly indicating the action. However, 'full details' is slightly vague and does not explicitly distinguish from other retrieval tools like node_links, but context with siblings shows it's for a single node's details.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compute_get or node_links. The description fails to mention any prerequisites or typical use cases.

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