aeroedu_kg_node_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by detailing the returned information (full description, related concepts, learning materials, mastery stats). No contradictions with 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?

Two concise sentences: the first covers purpose and what is returned, the second provides usage dependency. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (full description, related concepts, learning materials, mastery stats). It also notes the optional parameter include_resources. For a detail view tool, this is complete.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description reinforces the use of node_id from search results and mentions that include_resources controls learning materials listing, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema.

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 it is for viewing details of a knowledge graph node, listing specific content (full description, related concepts, learning materials, mastery stats). It also notes to use node_id from aeroedu_kg_search, distinguishing it from sibling tools like aeroedu_kg_search and aeroedu_kg_path_find.

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 explicitly says to use node_id from aeroedu_kg_search, providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not include exclusions or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for correct selection among sibling tools.

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