get_node_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of the returned data (a set of per-node properties). However, it says nothing about whether the call fails on a missing node, whether paths are scene-relative, or how 'changed parameters' is scoped — meaningful operational details for a no-annotation 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?

One front-loaded sentence that wastes no words and lists the return contents in a scannable order. It is perhaps too terse for the amount of ambiguity it leaves, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it partially covers that by enumerating five fields. Gaps remain around path format, error behavior on invalid nodes, and how this differs from get_node_errors_detailed, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 should compensate for the single node_path parameter, but it never explains the expected path format (e.g., '/obj/geo1' vs 'geo1') or whether relative paths are accepted. The parameter name alone does most of the work here.

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 uses a clear verb ('Return') with a specific resource ('a node') and enumerates the payload: type, connections, flags, errors, and changed parameters. That makes the tool distinguishable from siblings like get_attribute_info or get_context_info, though it overlaps noticeably with get_node_errors_detailed without acknowledging the distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many get_*_info siblings, nor any stated precondition (e.g., that the node must exist in the current scene). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and sibling list.

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