get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavior of each include mode (what each returns), which is useful beyond annotations, though it omits details like pagination or error behavior. No contradiction with annotations; annotation_contradiction=false.

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 that states the core purpose first, then packs the three include-mode behaviors with zero wasted words. Highly efficient for the information it conveys.

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 5 parameters, no property descriptions, and no output schema, the description only covers the include parameter. ref, as_of, max_chars, and response_format are unexplained, leaving an agent to guess at required input semantics and return expectations for a tool with zero schema-level documentation.

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 the description must compensate, but it only explains the include parameter. The other four parameters (ref, as_of, max_chars, response_format) receive no description coverage in either the schema or the description, despite ref being required and response_format/as_of having non-obvious semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('읽습니다' / reads nodes by address), and elaborates the three include modes. It is clear about what the tool does, though the generic name 'get' combined with read-oriented siblings (find, query, neighborhood, trace) means it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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 explains what the include values (brief/full/body) return, which is useful parameter-level guidance. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose 'get' over read-style siblings like find, query, neighborhood, or trace, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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