get_node_install_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that the result contains a secret token, must be shown only to the user, and is read-only. It could still say more about provider-only auth requirements or whether the token is time-limited.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the provider context, purpose, sensitivity warning, and read-only nature without wasted words.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, use case, secret-handling requirement, and read-only nature. It is missing only the source or format of node_id, which is the main remaining gap.

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 0%, and the description never mentions the single required node_id parameter. It implies an existing node but does not explain how to obtain or format the node identifier, leaving the schema to carry a parameter it does not document.

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 and resource: returning the Docker install command for an existing node. It clearly scopes the tool to reinstall/move scenarios on an existing node, distinguishing it from add_node or update_node.

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 use case is explicit: an existing node that needs to be reinstalled or moved. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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