get_node_info

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists the returned information (type, properties, etc.) but omits any side effects, permissions needed, destructive potential, or whether it is read-only. For a tool that retrieves data, it likely has no destructive effects, but that is not explicitly stated.

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 a single, concise sentence that includes all essential information without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and efficiently lists the information categories.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It specifies what info is returned, which suffices for basic usage. However, additional behavioral context (e.g., read-only hint) would improve completeness, but it's adequate for its 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 coverage is 100% (one parameter: node_id described as 'Node ID'). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats 'specific node'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get detailed info about a specific node in the workflow: type, properties, inputs, outputs, widget values.' It specifies the verb 'get', the resource 'node info', and lists the categories of information returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_workflow' (whole workflow) or 'summarize_workflow'.

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 when it is appropriate, scenarios where another tool would be better, or any prerequisites. For instance, it doesn't clarify that it's meant for detailed inspection vs. 'get_workflow' for overview.

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