get_node

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature, the return format (node with pruned child board, stubs for deeper levels), and default depth. Missing explicit idempotency or side-effect mention, but the read-only intent is clear.

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?

Three concise sentences. Front-loaded with the primary action, then parameter details, then usage advice. No superfluous words.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (node with pruned child board, stubs). The path semantics are clearly tied to the application's URL structure. Complete enough for an agent to use 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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'path' parameter as the URL hash or stub path, and 'depth' with default 1 and behavior for deeper levels. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Read ONE node' and specifies the unique addressing mechanism (URL hash path or stub's more.path). It distinguishes from siblings like get_sheet by contrasting 'jump straight to one pillar/sub-board instead of dumping the whole sheet'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for reading a single node) and when not to use it (for editing, directing to set_node or edit_board). It also warns not to 'resend the sheet' for editing.

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