Get node parameters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the warning that 'a full parameter dump is large' and the token economy suggestions. This informs the agent about performance/context implications, which is not in the schema or 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does and the return shape, the second covers optional flags, and the third provides an alternative and token economy warning. No redundant phrasing or verbosity.

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 simple read tool with an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers scope, return structure, optional filters, a relevant alternative, and a practical caution about response size. There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from using this tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the purpose of `keys` ('project specific parameters') and `omit_io` ('drop the inputs/outputs lists') in plain language, and connects them to the token economy concern. While it largely rephrases the schema, the added rationale for using these flags justifies a 4.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'read the current parameters (and inputs/outputs) of one node.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like compare_td_nodes and get_td_nodes by explicitly limiting scope to a single node and highlighting the return shape.

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 provides explicit usage context: it tells when to use this tool (read one node's parameters) and mentions an alternative (`compare_td_nodes`) for diffing two nodes. It also gives practical guidance on parameter flags for token efficiency, which helps the agent decide when to use optional arguments.

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