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 burden, and it does disclose a key behavioral nuance: only non-default parameters are returned, plus total_param_count. The 'Get' framing implies a read-only operationlint, and the description clearly enumerates what the tool returns, though it does not mention path validation, error behavior, or side effects explicitly.

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 main purpose and return behavior are front-loaded in two concise sentences, and the sibling reference is efficient. The trailing Args block duplicates the schema and introduces ctx, which is minor clutter, but the overall description is short and scannable.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only info tool, the description covers the key output fields and explicitly notes the non-default parameter behavior. The lack of an output schema and exact return shape is a gap, but the field list and sibling hint give an agent enough context to invoke 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?

The schema has zero description coverage, and the description only repeats 'node_path: Node path' without adding path syntax, examples, or formatting details. While the single parameter is simple, the description does not meaningfully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('node info'), then enumerates the exact fields: type, connections, flags, errors, cook time, and non-default parameters. It also differentiates from get_parameter_schema, making it easy for an agent to know what this tool uniquely provides.

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 explicitly routes the agent to get_parameter_schema when the full parameter list is needed, while clarifying that this tool only returns non-default parameters plus a total count. This gives clear when-to-use context against the most relevant sibling, though it does not address other overlapping info tools like get_node_card.

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