get_node_attributes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It merely restates the operation ('Get all attributes') without specifying return format, error handling, whether attributes include system-defined ones, or any side effects. The phrase 'all attributes' is ambiguous and could lead an agent to misunderstand the output.

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 concise sentence with no extraneous words. It effectively front-loads the core action and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a two-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'attributes' means, what the return value looks like, or what happens if the node does not exist. An agent could invoke it but would lack crucial information to interpret the result correctly.

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 compensate. It clarifies that the 'node' parameter refers to a node whose attributes are retrieved, but it does not explain that 'graph' identifies the graph containing the node, nor does it describe expected value formats beyond the schema. The description adds minimal value over the self-explanatory parameter names.

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 retrieves all attributes for a node using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('attributes of a node'). It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_edge_attributes or set_node_attributes.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_edge_attributes, get_neighbors, or set_node_attributes. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or what distinguishes this operation from similar getters.

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