get_node_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it discloses that expression-driven parameters using SOP local variables come back as value:null with expression and local_variable:true, that only non-default parameters are returned alongside total_param_count, and that VOP nodes gain connector_types. It never states read-only/permission behavior explicitly, but the returned-shape detail is unusually rich for a no-annotation tool.

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 returned-content list is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by high-value behavioral notes, so a reader gets the gist immediately. It is efficiently sized overall, though the boilerplate Args block listing ctx and node_path adds little.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description must describe the return shape itself, and it does: named fields, the non-default-parameters restriction, total_param_count, and the VOP-specific connector_types. Only permission/safety context is missing, which is a minor gap for a read-only-looking info tool.

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?

Only one parameter (node_path) exists and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. Instead the Args block merely restates 'node_path: Node Path.' and 'ctx: MCP context', adding no format, path-convention, or validity semantics. It is adequate but not informative.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates exactly what is returned (type, connections, flags, errors, cook time, non-default parameters), which materially distinguishes it from generic siblings. It also names get_parameter_schema as the tool for the full parameter list. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_parameters, get_node_card, or explain_node, so differentiation is content-based rather than explicit.

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?

One genuine routing sentence exists: 'Use get_parameter_schema to inspect the full parameter list,' which tells the agent when to pick the alternative. Beyond that there is no guidance on when this tool is preferable to get_parameters, get_node_card, or get_node_errors_detailed. Usage is implied by the returned content rather than stated.

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