get_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: current-build details are deliberately excluded, and node names are case sensitive and cannot be empty. It does not state the safety/read-only nature explicitly or the response shape, but the input constraints and exclusions are substantive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the exclusions and input constraints. Slightly awkward line wrapping but no wasted content.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the return fields, the intentionally excluded data, an alternative tool, and the input validation rules. The one gap is that it never characterizes the operation as a safe read, but an agent has enough to call 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 description coverage is 0% for the single node_name parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does by specifying case sensitivity and that the value must not be empty. This adds meaning well beyond the bare 'string' type in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one node's') and enumerates the exact data returned: capacity, idle state, offline reason. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_running_builds, so an agent can tell it apart without opening another schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to list_running_builds for current-build details and explains why they are excluded here. It does not name the more directly competing sibling list_nodes (for enumerating all nodes) or set_node_offline, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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