Get node documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it is 'immutable,' 'never follows the included URL,' and requires 'no n8n URL, API key, network, or elevated mode.' It also discloses the return payload structure (source/fetched provenance, canonical type, title, summary, guidance, official URL), which enriches the behavioral contract without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two sentences deliver high-density information without waste. The first sentence states the purpose and the exact accepted keys; the second sentence covers alternatives, prerequisites, side-effect behavior, and the precise return fields. Each clause earns its place, and the most critical info is front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, enum, output schema present), the description is complete: it covers the parameter's exact semantics, the absence of network/authentication needs, side-effect-free behavior (never follows URL), and what will be returned. No crucial information is missing for an agent to invoke it 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 100% and the enum already limits node to four valid values. The description adds value by clarifying that 'node is an exact local key—webhook, code, http-request, or if—not an arbitrary n8n node-type string,' which prevents common misinterpretations and explains the semantic distinction vs. generic node types. This goes beyond a simple restatement of 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 opens with 'Return one immutable bundled reference,' clearly identifying the verb (return), resource (node documentation), and scope (immutable bundled reference). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly directing users to n8n_list_node_types for inventorying types and official docs for anything else, making the tool's unique purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'node is an exact local key—webhook, code, http-request, or if—not an arbitrary n8n node-type string.' It also states exclusions ('not an arbitrary n8n node-type string') and names alternatives (n8n_list_node_types, official docs), fulfilling both positive and negative usage criteria.

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