get_node_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It conveys that this is a read operation ('Get') and specifies the data is 'stored' and 'day-0 startup configuration text', which implies safety. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, error conditions, or access requirements, though for a simple read with an output schema, the lack of extra detail is acceptable.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and an output schema, so the description is mostly adequate for basic use. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this vs. sibling configuration tools and provides no parameter explanations, leaving some context gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It references 'a node' which hints at node_id, but it does not explain lab_id or the relationship between the two parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's bare field names.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('stored day-0 startup configuration text'), and the target ('a node'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_node_config (write) and extract_node_config (likely different extraction context) by specifying 'stored' and 'day-0 startup'.

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 for retrieving a node's saved initial configuration, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over similar tools such as extract_node_config or get_node_console_log. No clear alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the usage context inferred rather than explicit.

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