get_db_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get DB Node details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't confirm safety, permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide necessary behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at just three words. While this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, every word serves a purpose: 'Get' indicates the action, 'DB Node' specifies the resource, and 'details' suggests granular information. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration.

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 zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for the single required parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what details are returned, how to interpret results, error handling, or any operational considerations. For a tool that presumably interacts with database infrastructure, this minimal description leaves critical gaps.

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 single parameter 'db_node_id' is undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't mention this parameter at all, failing to explain what a DB node ID is, where to find it, or its expected format. With one required parameter and no schema documentation, the description adds no value beyond what's already implied by the tool name.

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 'Get DB Node details' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'get_db_node' with minimal elaboration. While it indicates the tool retrieves information about a database node, it lacks specificity about what details are returned or the scope of the operation. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'list_db_nodes' or other get_* tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication, differentiate from 'list_db_nodes' for bulk retrieval, or specify when detailed node information is needed versus summary data. With many sibling tools available, this absence of context is problematic.

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