explain_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It doesn't state what the 'explanation' contains, whether it is read-only, costly, or requires the node to exist. For a tool whose entire value is the shape of its human-readable output, this is a substantial gap.

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?

It is short and front-loads the core verb phrase, which is good, but the trailing 'Args:' block is boilerplate that repeats the parameter name without adding information. Adequately sized, but it earns little of its small footprint.

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, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description should carry the load – and it doesn't. An agent still cannot predict what calling this returns or when it succeeds versus fails.

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% and the description only offers 'node_path: Node path.', which merely restates the parameter name. It adds no format, validity, scope, or path-syntax meaning to compensate for the empty 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 states a verb ('Explain') and a resource ('a node') but 'explain' is ambiguous – it doesn't say whether this returns documentation for a node type, an instance, or its parameters. With dozens of siblings like get_node_info, get_node_card, and get_node_errors_detailed, no differentiation is offered, leaving the agent to guess how this differs.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent cannot tell from the text whether to reach for explain_node versus get_node_info or get_node_card when it wants information about a node.

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