brain_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read, but it says nothing about behavior on a missing id, permission requirements, lookup cost, or how large 'full details' is. For a zero-annotation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, keying constraint, and format examples; no filler.

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?

A one-parameter read tool with no output schema, so the description should at least sketch what 'full details' returns. It names the resource and id format but leaves the return shape and error behavior unstated, which is a modest but real gap.

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% and node_id has no schema description, so the description's two example ids ('vault:api-agent-allowlist', 'api:src/server/routes.py') are genuinely useful for inferring the id format. It still doesn't explain the namespace/prefix scheme or what happens with a malformed id, so it only partially compensates.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get full details') and resource ('brain node') scoped to a lookup by id, which clearly separates it from the sibling brain_search. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself against brain_neighbors or brain_path, which also operate on nodes.

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 phrase 'by id' implies you must already know the node id, but the description never states when to use this instead of brain_search (e.g. 'use brain_search when you don't have an id'). No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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