Get node

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: plain-language node inputs trigger semantic resolution with match scores and alternatives, and include_children=false skips connected_nodes for large containers.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and parameter behavior clarified in the second paragraph. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 description is sufficient for basic retrieval and explains the semantic-resolution behavior, but it leaves graph_id undocumented and does not clarify routing versus search_nodes. Given the 0% schema description coverage, those are meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to scope or select the call.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains node (id or plain-language query with resolution details) and include_children (skips connected_nodes), but graph_id is completely undocumented.

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 specific verb and resource, 'Get one node', and enumerates what is returned: properties, semantic statements, and connected_nodes with edge types. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this retrieval tool from the sibling search_nodes tool.

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?

It gives useful conditional guidance for include_children=false on large containers and explains that node can be a plain-language query resolved by semantic search. However, it never states when to use get_node instead of search_nodes, list_edges, or other sibling tools.

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