node_get

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get details' implies a read, but it says nothing about failure behavior for unknown IDs, permissions, or what 'details' includes — and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant phrasing. It is economically written, though the economy comes partly from omission.

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 tool in a crowded family of node_* operations, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least distinguish node_get from get_nodes_info/node_list_by_scheme and say what happens on a missing ID. Neither is covered.

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 coverage is 100% and the single node_id parameter is documented in the schema, so the description adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific node') keyed by ID, so the agent knows exactly what it returns conceptually. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as get_nodes_info or node_list_by_scheme, so it falls short of a 5.

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 mention of covering alternatives, and no preconditions stated. The only hint is 'by its ID', which merely restates the required parameter.

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