get_node

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by disclosing token estimates for each detail level (minimal ~200 tokens, standard ~1-2K, full ~3-8K) and stating that modes return different content (e.g., docs = markdown documentation). No contradiction with annotations is present, and the extra context helps an agent anticipate response size and content.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then listing details. Every sentence contributes useful information. The minor error ('format' vs 'mode') detracts slightly but the structure is efficient overall.

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 complexity (9 parameters, multiple modes), the description covers the main modes and detail levels but omits explanations of version-related modes (versions, compare, breaking, migrations) and parameters like includeExamples, includeTypeInfo, maxPropertyResults, toVersion, fromVersion. The schema covers these, but the description could provide more high-level guidance for a complex tool.

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 100% and includes detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds token counts for detail levels and groups modes concisely, but also repeats information already in the schema. The confusing 'format' reference slightly reduces clarity. Overall, the description provides marginal extra value over the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 the tool gets node info with progressive detail levels and multiple modes, making the purpose well-defined. However, it introduces an inconsistency by saying 'Use format='docs'' when the parameter is actually named 'mode', which could confuse an agent. Still, the overall purpose is distinct from siblings like search_nodes or tools_documentation.

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?

The description fails to provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., tools_documentation, search_nodes). It does not mention when-not to use it or suggest alternatives. The information on modes and detail levels helps with intra-tool choices but not tool selection.

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