node_process_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, error behavior for an unknown ID, or what 'details' actually contains. For a lookup tool with zero structured safety metadata, a single generic sentence leaves the agent guessing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently sized for a one-parameter lookup, though brevity here borders on under-specification rather than economy.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of what fields 'details' covers, an agent cannot anticipate the response shape or any failure mode. A one-parameter read tool can be described briefly, but this leaves a meaningful informational gap given the surrounding scheme/node complexity.

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 100%, so the single node_process_id parameter is already documented with type and meaning. The description adds only that it identifies a 'specific' node process execution, which is the baseline expectation rather than new semantic value.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get details of a specific node process execution') that clearly identifies a single-record fetch. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from near-siblings such as node_process_list_filtered or scheme_process_get, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 statement of when to use this vs. the list/filtered variant, no mention that the ID typically comes from node_process_list_filtered, and no exclusions. The one word 'specific' is the only usage cue, which is not enough guidance for choosing among the many node_* and *_process_* siblings.

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