get_hda_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Get detailed information' and never describes return shape, possible side effects, whether loading a definition may occur, error behavior, or anything beyond the bare operation.

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 concise and front-loads the main purpose before listing arguments. There is no filler or repetition. It is compact, though compactness comes at the cost of missing important usage and behavior details.

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 annotation safety net, three nullable parameters, and no output schema, the description is not sufficient to call the tool correctly. An agent cannot infer return contents, how to choose between node_path/hda_file/type_name, or what 'detailed information' means in this HDA context.

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%, so the description must compensate. The Args list labels each parameter ('Node path', 'HDA file path', 'HDA type name') but does not explain whether these are alternatives, which are required, or how they relate. It also lists 'ctx: MCP context' even though ctx is not present in the provided input 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 opening sentence states a clear verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about an HDA definition.' It is reasonably specific, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_hda_sections, get_hda_section_content, or get_hda_info-related lookup tools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or selectors. The description simply states the purpose and then lists arguments; an agent receives no help deciding whether to call get_hda_info, list_hda_versions, get_hda_sections, or get_hda_section_content.

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