get_node_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states what the tool returns (nodes, connections, interfaces, users) but does not disclose whether it is read-only, performance implications, or any side effects. The term '全貌' implies a comprehensive snapshot, but nothing about behavior is explicitly stated.

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 sentence, very concise and front-loaded with the core concept. It wastes no words, though it could benefit from a bit more detail on the return structure without sacrificing brevity.

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 tool that likely returns a complex data structure (nodes, connections, interfaces, users), there is no output schema, no annotations, and minimal parameter info. The description gives no indication of the return format, how to interpret the data, or any edge cases. This is highly incomplete for an agent to use the tool 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?

The schema has one parameter 'node_group' with 0% description coverage. The description mentions '节点组' (node group) which is essentially the same as the parameter name, providing no additional semantic meaning. The agent gains no information about the parameter's format, allowed values, or how it is used.

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 states it provides a full overview of a node group, listing components: nodes, connections, interfaces, and users. It clearly identifies the resource (node group) and the action (getting an overview), but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like list_node_groups or get_node_types, which also deal with node group structure.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparative context with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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