get_node

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing token ranges for each detail level, indicating response size, and clarifying that modes return different formats (e.g., markdown docs). This goes beyond the annotations.

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 compact (three sentences) and front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently describes details and usage tips. Every sentence is informative, with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially explains return characteristics via token estimates and mode outputs, but it does not fully detail the response structure for each mode. The description covers most relevant dimensions (modes, detail, parameters) but could be more explicit about the differences between version-related modes.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful parameter relationships, such as connecting mode='search_properties' with propertyQuery and providing token estimates for detail levels. However, it incorrectly uses 'format' instead of 'mode' in one tip, which could cause minor confusion.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('node info'), and enumerates distinct modes (info, docs, search_properties, versions) that differentiate it from search/validation tools. The phrase 'progressive detail levels' further clarifies the scope.

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 description provides clear guidance on when to use specific modes ('Use format='docs' for readable documentation, mode='search_properties' with propertyQuery') but does not explicitly compare this tool to siblings like search_nodes or validate_node. The context implies that get_node is for retrieving details of a known node type, not for discovering nodes.

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