get_api_node_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns visible inputs with types/defaults/options, hidden inputs (server-filled auth), and outputs. It also names the source endpoint (/object_info). It does not mention error behavior or rate limits, but the provided context is sufficient for a straightforward read operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words. Information is efficiently packed.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers key aspects: what is returned (inputs with details, outputs), source, and prerequisite. It lacks details on return structure or error cases, but the provided information is adequate for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 covers the single parameter 'class_type' with a description and example. The tool's description does not add additional semantic value for the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb ('Return the input schema') and resource ('for a specific API/partner node'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_api_nodes (which lists nodes) and get_node_info (which likely returns broader node info). It also specifies the contents: visible inputs, hidden inputs, and outputs.

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 advises to 'Use list_api_nodes first to find a class_type', providing clear prerequisite guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool (e.g., when get_node_info would be more appropriate), which would improve differentiation.

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