GetNode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it retrieves details without mentioning: what format the details come in, whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the node doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 extremely concise - a single phrase in Chinese. While this is efficient and front-loaded, it may be too brief given the lack of other contextual information. However, every word earns its place by stating the core action and target resource without any fluff or redundancy.

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 there's no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more complete context about what this tool returns and how it behaves. The description only states what the tool does at a high level without addressing: the format/structure of returned node details, error handling, authentication needs, or how this differs from related 'Get' and 'List' operations in the sibling toolset. For a tool in a complex data development environment, this is inadequate.

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%, with both parameters ('Id' and 'ProjectId') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 '获取数据开发节点详情' (Get data development node details) clearly states the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('数据开发节点详情' - data development node details), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetNode' vs 'ListNodes' or 'GetTask' - it's a generic 'get details' operation without specifying what makes this particular 'get' unique in the context of this toolset.

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. There are many sibling tools with 'Get' prefixes (GetAlertRule, GetCatalog, GetColumn, etc.) and specifically 'ListNodes' exists, but the description doesn't indicate when to retrieve a single node's details versus listing multiple nodes. No prerequisites, constraints, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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