explain_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the action and the parameter, with no details about what 'explain' produces (e.g., a summary, a detailed report), whether it performs side effects, or performance implications. This is insufficient for a tool that likely executes complex logic.

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 very short and to the point, with no filler. It front-loads the main action and then lists the parameter. However, it is somewhat under-specified for the complexity of the tool, but it earns a 4 for conciseness and clarity.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what the output looks like and any constraints. The current description is minimal, leaving the agent unsure about the return format and path requirements, making it incomplete for effective use.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the parameter is only a bare string. The description merely repeats 'node_path' without adding any meaning about the expected format, such as absolute vs. relative paths, or whether it refers to a Houdini path. This is a serious shortfall.

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 states a clear action ('Explain a node in human-readable form') and names the resource (node). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_node_info and get_node_card, which presumably retrieve raw data, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where a human-readable explanation is preferable to raw node info, nor does it reference other tools for comparison. This is a clear gap.

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