get_node

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the burden. It describes the tool as a read operation ('Get detailed information'), which is appropriate. However, it does not disclose any permission requirements, rate limits, or whether data is live vs cached. For a simple get, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 well-structured with a title line, bulleted list of retrieved info, and an Args section. It is concise without being overly terse, though the Args section could be integrated into the prose.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks explanation of parameter sources or prerequisites (e.g., node must exist, project must be accessible). It covers the basics but misses some context.

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 0%, so description must compensate. However, it only repeats parameter names ('project_id: Project ID, node_id: Node ID') without adding any format, constraints, or examples. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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?

Title is null but description clearly states 'Get detailed information about a specific infrastructure node' and lists specific metrics (CPU, memory, disk, network, containers, health, system info). This distinguishes it from sibling get_nodes_overview (which lists nodes).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_nodes_overview or other get_* tools. The usage is implied for retrieving detailed node info, but no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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