get_node

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: progressive detail levels with token estimates (minimal ~200, standard ~1-2K, full ~3-8K) and mode descriptions. It does not contradict annotations and provides transparency about output size and behavior.

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 concise (approximately 5 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently covers modes and detail levels without redundancy. Minor improvement could be structuring mode list more clearly, but it is well within acceptable limits.

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 9 parameters (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description adequately explains modes and detail levels. It provides usage hints but could be more explicit about return format per mode. However, it is sufficiently complete for a read-only info tool with robust annotations.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description enhances parameter understanding by adding token estimates for detail levels and clarifying mode purposes. It also provides usage hints like 'Use format='docs'' (though format is not a parameter, mode='docs' is correct). Overall, it adds meaningful context beyond the 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 it retrieves node information with progressive detail levels and multiple modes. It uses specific verbs ('Get node info') and distinguishes from siblings by highlighting unique features like multiple modes and detail levels, which other node-related tools (e.g., validate_node, search_nodes) do not offer.

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 for specific modes: 'Use format='docs' for readable documentation, mode='search_properties' with propertyQuery for finding specific fields.' It gives context on when to use different modes, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or reference sibling alternatives.

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