arcium_get_node_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like permission requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is not contradictory, but it lacks depth for a mutation-free tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and key data included.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return content (encryption pubkey, cluster memberships). It could list more fields or clarify the response format, but it is sufficient for a get-only tool.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters (node_address), and its description is clear. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Get' and the resource 'detailed info about a specific ARX node', specifying key data like encryption pubkey and cluster memberships. This distinguishes it from siblings such as arcium_list_nodes (list) and arcium_get_cluster_info (cluster-level info).

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 implies that to retrieve details of a specific node, use this tool. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., arcium_list_nodes for overview), nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.

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