get_node_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. Saying it 'reads' implies non-mutation and it partially reveals the return shape (value plus type), but nothing is said about required permissions, whether 'graph'/'package' must match an open context, or what happens when the node or parameter is missing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, but structurally clean.

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?

Wait — rescored: for a 4-parameter, zero-annotation, output-schema-less tool, the description must explain both the scope parameters and the return contract. It gestures at the return (value and type) but leaves graph/package and failure behavior invisible, and it is written in Spanish while every sibling name and the schema titles are English. Not adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 sentence only accounts for node_id and parameter in the vaguest terms. The optional 'graph' and 'package' parameters — which plausibly scope the lookup to a particular open graph or package — are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lee') and resource ('valor y tipo de un parametro de un nodo'), which is enough to tell it apart from the sibling set_node_parameter (write counterpart) and get_node_info (whole-node info). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_node_info, list_nodes, or get_app_info, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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