nodes_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what information is returned (node configuration, JVM info, thread pool config, etc.), but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires special permissions, what format the return data takes, or any performance/rate limit considerations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized with three clear sections: purpose statement, parameter explanations, and return value summary. Each sentence earns its place, though the Chinese-only format may limit accessibility for some agents. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does an adequate job explaining parameters and return types. However, for a node information tool in a complex Elasticsearch-like system with many sibling tools, it should provide more context about when this specific API is appropriate versus alternatives. The absence of annotations means the description should do more heavy lifting on behavioral aspects.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'node_id' as optional with comma-separated multiple values, and 'metric' with specific allowed values (settings/os/process/jvm/thread_pool/transport/http/plugins/ingest). This adds significant meaning beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't explain default behaviors when parameters are omitted.

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 '获取节点信息' (Get node information), which clearly indicates the verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'cat_nodes' or 'nodes_stats' that also provide node-related information. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 like 'cat_nodes', 'nodes_stats', or 'nodes_usage'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with sibling tools. Usage is implied through parameter descriptions but not explicitly stated.

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