get_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that reserved keys (_citations/_superseded/_provenance) are exposed as-is, justifies this as read-only and evidence/history purposes, and notes there is no forgery risk. This goes beyond the schema and adds valuable behavioral context, though it stops short of covering error handling or auth requirements.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a specific, relevant nuance about reserved keys. Every word earns its place; no redundant information.

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 tool has an output schema (per context signal), so the description needn't explain return values. It covers the core semantics (whole node, tags, properties) and adds a behavioral caveat about reserved keys. For a simple get-by-id operation, this is sufficient, though it omits details like handling non-existent nodes or the impact of include_neighbors on output shape—but the schema covers the latter.

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 50%: the include_neighbors parameter has a description, but id does not. The tool description does not clarify the id's format or any additional constraints, nor does it explain how it relates to the returned node. With only half the parameters described, the description should compensate, but it doesn't, leaving id semantically under-documented.

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 '노드 하나를 통째로 조회한다' (fetch one whole node) with a specific verb and resource, including properties and tags. It distinguishes from siblings like list_nodes (listing many) and get_neighbors (neighbors only) by the 'whole node' scope. The nuance about reserved keys adds clarity without ambiguity.

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 implies usage: fetch a single node when you need its full data. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_nodes or get_neighbors, nor mention when not to use it. Since there are many sibling tools, explicit routing would help, but the purpose statement gives enough implicit guidance.

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