get_nodes_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses parallel execution, the return shape keyed by nodeId, and the notable failure-handling behavior where failed lookups are returned in a `failed` array rather than causing overall errors. This goes beyond the schema and is crucial for callers to trust batch behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, performance benefit, and failure behavior. No wordiness or redundant restatement of tool name.

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?

This tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the essential operational context: what it returns (same shape as get_node_details, keyed by nodeId), how errors are handled, and the parallelism. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without further inference.

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 schema already describes nodeIds as an array of strings with min/max items (100% coverage). The description adds only that the call is for 'multiple node IDs' and mentions 'max 50 per call' (already in schema), so it does not meaningfully enrich parameter understanding 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?

The description opens with 'Bulk-fetch metadata for multiple node IDs in parallel,' which precisely states the action (bulk-fetch) and resource (metadata for node IDs). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_node_details by explicitly saying 'Bulk' and referencing the same return shape, making the difference clear.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use context: 'Saves N round-trips when callers need details for many nodes (e.g. resolve cards from a search).' It also references get_node_details for shape, implying that tool for single-node calls, but does not explicitly state 'use get_node_details for a single node.' This is strong but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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