get_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does well by disclosing the exact response shape: grouped links, real total, and max_per_type heaviest neighbours with listed fields. It does not discuss errors or authentication, but for a single-node read operation the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 short, dense sentences with no filler. The core output is front-loaded, and the traversal hint is placed last without bloating the description.

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 that an output schema exists and the description already lays out the response structure, link grouping, and truncation semantics, an agent has what it needs to call this tool correctly. The only omission is node_id format details, which the schema supplies.

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 adds real meaning to max_per_type by defining it as the number of heaviest neighbours included per link-type group. node_id is implicit from the tool name and schema title, so the only non-obvious parameter is explained.

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 that this tool returns one node with its properties and its links grouped by link type, and then explains the grouping semantics in detail. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like get_graph or neighbors without opening their schemas.

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 closing instruction 'Use neighbors to walk further' explicitly points to the sibling tool for traversal, and 'One node' implies this is for inspecting a specific node rather than the whole graph. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions for get_graph or search, but the context is clear.

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