gns3_get_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return content ('complete node configuration including ports and properties'), which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on authentication needs (username/password parameters), error handling, or rate limits. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds key behavioral detail about the return value. Every sentence earns its place.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but fails to clarify parameter usage or behavioral nuances. The output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but gaps remain in parameter and behavioral transparency.

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%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain any parameters—what 'project_id' or 'node_id' represent, or why 'server_url', 'username', and 'password' are needed. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific node' with the verb 'Get' and resource 'node'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'gns3_list_nodes' (which lists multiple nodes) and 'gns3_get_node_config' (which might focus on configuration only). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'gns3_get_node_config' or 'gns3_list_nodes', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an existing node. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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