get_node_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about raw integer units (bytes, millicores) and the need to convert them, which is beyond what the schema provides. However, it omits error cases, pagination, and permission requirements.

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 two sentences: a clear purpose statement plus an important note about value formatting. No filler, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has a simple parameter set and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return structure. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and leaves partitionName semantics unclear. The raw integer note adds useful context, making the description adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, but the description partially explains that nodeId is optional ('all nodes or a specific node') and clarifies output unit semantics. It does not explicitly explain partitionName, which is required and left undocumented by 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 the tool fetches nodes (all or specific) managed by YuniKorn, including capacity and utilization. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_partitions or get_applications_by_state, which target different resources.

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 implies when to use the tool (when node-level resource details are needed) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state exclusions. No direct guidance is provided about when other tools would be preferred.

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