get_node_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Retrieve' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and listing the exact return fields is transparent. Yet it does not disclose potential response size from includeTextContent, error behavior for invalid node IDs, or performance characteristics. These are notable gaps for a tool that can fetch full text.

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 clear opening sentence, a field list, and bullet points for extras. It is slightly longer than necessary due to the exhaustive list of fields, but that list helps set expectations for output structure. No filler content is present.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does a strong job explaining return structure and optional parameters. It covers the core functionality thoroughly but omits error-handling details and does not differentiate from the sibling get_nodes_details (plural), which might be relevant for batch use cases. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds semantic context by mapping the optional outputs (textContent, parents, raw) to their use cases, such as finding a Sammlung or debugging. This goes beyond the schema's simple parameter descriptions, though it does not fully explain the outputFormat choices beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve detailed metadata, stored full-text content, and/or parent collections for a specific WLO node.' It clearly distinguishes itself from search tools by noting it returns the 'SAME field structure as search tools' and adds optional fields. This makes the tool's unique role unambiguous.

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 implies usage after a search: it returns the same structure as search tools but with additional detail for a specific node. It provides a concrete use case for parents ('useful to find which Sammlung a content item is in') and mentions raw is for 'debugging / advanced use'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like get_nodes_details for batch retrieval.

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