get_node_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions returning 'detailed information' but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or limitations (e.g., whether it's read-only). The mention of various include flags implies it can filter output, but that is already in the schema. Overall, minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the literal action.

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 effectively front-load the purpose and key detail (ID format). No wasted words.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the core purpose but does not explain the return structure or when to use specific parameters. For a tool with many customizable flags, more context would be helpful, though the schema does describe each parameter.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the node ID format and that hyphen format is also accepted. This helps the agent understand parameter syntax beyond the schema description.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific node by its GUID' and provides the ID format. It is specific about the resource (node) and action (get detailed info), though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_node_details.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_nodes or get_node_details. The description lacks context for selection among many sibling tools.

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