node_details

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns full properties and inbound/outbound edge counts, which is the core behavior. However, it does not mention permissions, error handling for nonexistent nodes, or any potential performance impacts, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose and input constraint. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, with no wasted content.

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 simple single-parameter input and presence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and input. However, it lacks additional context about potential edge cases or prerequisites (e.g., node must exist) and does not clarify if edge counts are inclusive of both directions or just summarized by type. This is adequate for a basic lookup tool but not fully complete.

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?

The schema only shows a single 'target' string with no description. The description compensates by indicating the target is a node name or object ID, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. Yet it lacks details on format (e.g., case sensitivity, exact name resolution rules), so it only partially compensates.

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 returns full node properties and edge counts by type, with the input specified as name or object ID. This is a specific operation on a resource and distinguishes it from siblings like search_object or run_cypher.

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 usage is implied: use this tool when you need complete node details and edge counts. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or reference to alternative tools (e.g., search_object for quick lookup), so it falls short of explicit context.

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