get_node

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It makes clear this is a narrow point read of specific fields, which implies read-only, but says nothing about behavior when the id does not exist, permission requirements, or error signaling.

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?

Two short sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the read and its output fields, the second gives the operational trigger. Front-loaded with the action rather than preamble.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully previews what comes back (name, type, position, size, parent). The field list appears illustrative rather than exhaustive, but an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% for the single nodeId parameter, so the schema already documents it completely. The description only restates that lookup is by id and adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'точечно читает одну ноду по id' and enumerates the returned fields (name, type, position, size, parent). The emphasis on 'одну ноду' implicitly distinguishes it from get_node_tree and find_node, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit call context: use immediately after write_node/clone_node to confirm the node was actually created where requested. That names concrete alternative tools and the triggering condition. It does not cover the when-not case, e.g. searching by criteria (find_node) or reading a whole subtree (get_node_tree).

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