read_node_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the scope of returned data (all non-default knobs, input/output connections, expressions, animation state, error info) and that Groups/Gizmos recurse into internal structure. It does not mention cost, truncation, or missing-node 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a compact enumeration of return contents. The trailing 'Args:' block mostly duplicates the schema and the description body, which is slight waste, but the passage overall is tight and earns its space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be defined here, yet the description still summarizes them helpfully. Combined with the readOnly annotation and full param coverage, an agent has enough to invoke correctly; only the lack of guidance on when this beats sibling readers leaves a gap.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'name'. The description only restates it verbatim ('node name to inspect'), adding no format, path syntax, or scoping detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Deep inspection of a single node', and enumerates what is returned (knobs, connections, expressions, animation state, errors) plus the Group/Gizmo special case. It separates itself informally from lighter siblings like get_knob or view_node via the word 'deep', but never names an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the words 'deep inspection', suggesting it is for thorough per-node dives rather than the narrower get_knob/view_node reads, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use rule is given. An agent must infer from sibling names alone.

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