mindgap_get_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that a missing id returns node:null (clean miss, not an error) and notes the default depth. This is transparent for a simple read operation, though it omits discussion of authentication or rate limits.

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 with no wasted words. All information is front-loaded and essential.

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?

For a simple fetch tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, depth behavior, and missing-id behavior. However, it does not describe the return structure (e.g., node data and neighborhood format), which would be helpful. Still, it is largely complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'depth' (range 1..3, default 1) but does not clarify what 'id' represents (e.g., node ID string). The missing-id behavior is about the result, not the parameter meaning. Partial coverage.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'a node and its neighborhood'. It specifies the depth range (1..3) with a default of 1, and distinguishes this read operation from siblings like mindgap_add_node or mindgap_remove_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?

The description implies use for fetching a node and its neighbors, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mindgap_find or mindgap_context. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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