Get node parameters

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint and non-destructive nature. The description adds 'Read-only' and specifies the return structure, plus filtering options. No contradictions; it provides good context but could mention any side effects or permission requirements if applicable.

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?

Three sentences with no waste: first defines action and return, second and third give parameter guidance and alternative. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the primary use case, parameter filtering, and mentions the diff alternative. Complete for the tool's purpose.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds meaningful guidance: 'project specific parameters' for keys and 'drop the inputs/outputs lists to save context' for omit_io, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 'read the current parameters (and inputs/outputs) of one node' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'compare_td_nodes' by mentioning the diffing alternative.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use optional parameters ('Pass keys to project specific parameters or omit_io:true') and explicitly names the alternative tool 'compare_td_nodes' when a diff is needed, providing clear context for when not to use this tool.

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