Show node record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the exact failure behavior (unknown id fails with no output, exit code 5) and the output format (plain text, with a list of included fields). This is useful contextual information not present in the 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, the failure condition is stated compactly, and the sibling routing is given in the second sentence. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a read-only, single-object retrieval tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the output contains, the failure mode, and how it differs from list and packet. There is no output schema, but the description describes the output well enough. No gaps remain.

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?

The schema already describes the id parameter with a 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete examples of valid id formats (W-12, G-03, D-40), which helps an agent construct valid inputs. That is a meaningful increment beyond the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing ('Dump one node's full record') and enumerates exactly what the output contains (kind, status, timestamps, every populated field, incident edges). It also explicitly contrasts with list and packet, so an agent can immediately tell this tool apart from those siblings.

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 names the two most likely alternatives (list for many nodes filtered by kind/status, packet for wrapping a work item in execution context) and states the conditions that select them. It also notes the failure mode for an unknown id, which helps an agent decide whether this is the right tool and how to handle errors.

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