get_my_node

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read-only' which is helpful, but omits authentication requirements, error behavior (e.g., if node_id is not found), and any rate limits. The mention of returned fields adds some context but is not sufficient for a mutation-free read tool.

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, short sentence with no wasted words. However, the leading 'PROVIDER:' is cryptic and may confuse rather than front-load useful information. Still, the size is appropriate.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It gives read-only status and some return fields, but does not cover error handling, authentication, or expected response structure. An agent would need to infer too much.

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% and the node_id parameter already has a clear description ('Node UUID from list_my_nodes'). The tool description does not add any new meaning about the parameter or its format; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 indicates it returns one of the account's nodes and lists fields (state, price, rental, live GPU metrics), which distinguishes it from list_my_nodes. However, it lacks a clear action verb like 'Get' or 'Retrieve' and the phrase 'PROVIDER: one of the account's nodes' is ambiguous; an agent must infer the purpose from the name and parameter.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It references the sibling list_my_nodes only to compare fields, but does not state 'use this when you have a specific node_id' or any exclusion conditions. The read-only note is not usage guidance.

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