Inspect node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavior disclosure. It describes the return content and the selective inclusion of non-default properties, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or that it requires a loaded project, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by concrete details. No filler or redundancy.

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 and the schema's coverage, the description provides a good summary of return contents. It lacks an explicit mention of the include_defaults toggle and how to discover node paths, but these are partially covered by the schema and sibling tools.

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 documents 75% of parameters; the description adds no explicit parameter semantics. It indirectly references the include_defaults behavior via 'properties that differ from their defaults' but does not elaborate on parameter usage or syntax.

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: 'Full detail for one node' and enumerates the specific attributes (type, inheritance chain, script, groups, signal connections, properties). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like scene_tree or runtime_inspect, though it does not explicitly name 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 implies when to use the tool (when needing comprehensive information about a single node) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It does not mention other tools like scene_tree for tree traversal or runtime_inspect for runtime state.

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