get_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it fails to do so. It does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what errors might occur, or the format of returned details. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is inadequate and leaves critical operational aspects unspecified.

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 extremely concise with just three words, but this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient communication. While front-loaded, it lacks necessary detail to be helpful. The structure is minimal but fails to convey essential information, making it inefficient in practice despite its short length.

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 complexity implied by sibling tools and the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not address what 'node details' include, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool in a graph management context with no structured support, this description is insufficient to guide 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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage for its two required parameters ('graph_id' and 'node_id'). It does not explain what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or how they relate to retrieving node details. With low schema coverage and no compensatory details in the description, parameter understanding is severely lacking.

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 'Get node details' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_node' without adding meaningful specificity. While it indicates a retrieval action on a 'node' resource, it lacks details about what 'details' encompass or how this differs from sibling tools like 'list_nodes' or 'get_node_edges'. This minimal phrasing provides only basic intent without distinguishing scope or content from alternatives.

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 prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when to choose 'get_node' over 'list_nodes' for bulk retrieval or 'get_node_edges' for relational data. With multiple sibling tools available (e.g., 'list_nodes', 'get_node_edges'), the absence of any usage instructions leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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