get_node

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. Description adds important behavioral details: no depth limit, no deduplication, returns null when id matches nothing. No contradiction with 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?

Two compact sentences deliver all key information: purpose, scope, behavioral quirks, and usage guidance. No redundant words, excellent front-loading.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (a node object or null). It could specify the return structure more precisely, but the context of a simple retrieval tool makes this sufficient.

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%. The description adds extra context beyond the schema: mentions that a pasted Figma URL also works as input, which aids the agent in correctly formatting the parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns one node by ID with full recursive subtree at maximum fidelity, listing specific serialized fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_design_context' which is depth-limited and deduped.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use ('inspecting a single component or a node you are about to modify') and when to prefer an alternative ('for exploring or grounding anything large, prefer get_design_context'). This provides clear decision guidance.

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