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 behavioral burden. It does disclose the response contents (names, parent node, primary image, child nodes) and the optional embedding behavior, which is useful. It says nothing about permissions, behavior on an unknown/invalid UUID, or whether child nodes are returned in full or partial form.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the lookup semantics before the return contents and optional embeds. Slightly redundant in naming 'primary image' twice (as a default return and as an optional embed), but no filler sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return shape, and it does so adequately for a simple read tool. Remaining gaps are minor: no error/not-found behavior and no clarity on how the default return differs from the embedded variants.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the UUID format and the defaults for both embed flags. The description restates the embed options without adding format, cost, or size implications, so 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 ('Get detailed information about a specific phylogenetic node by its UUID') and enumerates what the node contains. It clearly distinguishes a UUID-keyed lookup from the search-style siblings, but it never names get_node_lineage or get_root_node, which are the closest alternatives an agent must choose between.

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 UUID requirement implies the usage context (you already have a node identifier), which is a form of implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_node_lineage for ancestry or get_root_node for the tree root.

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