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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what format the output takes. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is being retrieved.

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 complexity (simple read operation with no parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't provide enough context about the output format, error conditions, or behavioral traits. For a tool with no structured output documentation, more detail on what 'info' includes would improve completeness.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids mentioning any. A baseline score of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce confusion about inputs.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Lightning node connection status and info'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_channels' or 'check_channel_balance', which might provide overlapping or related information about the Lightning network.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_channels', 'check_channel_balance', and 'get_agent_balance' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is for general node status, specific connection details, or how it differs from other informational tools in the set.

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