get_stateful_node

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. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. The description merely says 'Get details,' which lacks sufficient transparency for a tool with no annotation support.

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: one line for the purpose and two lines for parameter descriptions. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no superfluous 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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown but reported), so return value description is not required. However, the description lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidance, which are important for a tool with no annotations and a relatively specific purpose. For a simple 'get' tool, the level of completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 an example format for node_id ('e.g. smi-abc12345') and explains the default behavior for account_id ('Defaults to SPOTINST_ACCOUNT_ID env var'). This provides useful context beyond the schema, but both parameters could benefit from more detail (e.g., valid patterns, constraints).

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 'Get details of a specific AWS Stateful Node (Managed Instance).' It specifies the resource ('Stateful Node', 'Managed Instance'), action ('Get details'), and scope ('specific'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools 'list_stateful_nodes' and 'get_stateful_node_azure'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and purpose imply you need a node_id and should use list_stateful_nodes for browsing, the description does not mention this or provide any context about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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