get_node_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only says 'get detailed information' without disclosing whether this is a safe read-only operation, any permission requirements, potential errors (e.g., node not found), or side effects. It also fails to clarify what 'detailed' includes or whether the information is live or cached. The inclusion of an optional include_gpio parameter hints at behavior but is not explained in the description.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action and resource. There is no wasted verbiage, and it is appropriately concise given the simple nature of the tool.

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?

Although the schema covers parameters, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what fields or data structure the agent can expect in the response. The phrase 'detailed information' is vague and does not enumerate node attributes like status, configuration, or metadata. With no annotations and no return-value description, the agent may be underprepared for the tool's actual output.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (node_id and include_gpio). Since the schema fully documents both parameters, the description does not need to compensate, but it also offers no added clarity.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific node' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('node'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like provision_node or list_gpio_devices. It unambiguously states the tool's purpose as a read operation for a single node.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description: use this when you need detailed info about a specific node. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., discover_nodes for discovery, get_cluster_status for cluster-level info). The description does not mention any contextual prerequisites or exclusions.

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