get_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does not meet it. It does not say whether this is read-only (inferred from "Read"), what happens when the id is unknown (error vs. empty), whether any permissions or scoping apply, or what shape the MemoryNode comes back in.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, so nothing is wasted. Brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency, though, since the sentence could carry a clause on return value or failure behavior at no structural cost.

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 and no annotations, so the description is the only source of information about behavior. For a fetch-by-id tool the agent still lacks the id format, the not-found behavior, and the returned structure, leaving a meaningful gap.

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% for the single `node_id` parameter, so the schema offers only a name and a string type. The description adds little beyond reiterating "by id" — it does not say whether ids are UUIDs, opaque strings, or where to obtain one, which is the one piece of guidance a lookup tool most needs.

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 states a specific verb ("Read"), a specific resource ("MemoryNode"), and the lookup key ("by id"), which is enough to understand the operation at a glance. It does not, however, distinguish this by-id fetch from the sibling `recall` tool, which also reads memory content, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Nothing tells the agent when to use this rather than `recall`, which is the obvious alternative for retrieving memory. The only implicit guidance is "by id", which hints at direct lookup but never states the precondition that an id must already be known.

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