view_node

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

The annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool mutates viewer state rather than returning data, which is useful, but says nothing about persistence, whether other viewers are affected, or side effects on the current viewer input.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. The trailing Args section duplicates the schema's parameter description, which is minor redundancy but not harmful.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers what the tool does and what it operates on. Missing only the behavioral details (viewer scope, side effects) that the sparse annotations do not supply.

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 100% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description's Args block simply restates the schema text ('name of the node to view') without adding format, naming-convention, or resolution details.

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 states a specific verb and effect ('Set the viewer to display a specific node's output'), naming both the resource (node) and the resulting state change, so an agent can distinguish it from read-only siblings like read_node_detail. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings.

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 verb phrase: call this when you want a node's output shown in the viewer. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as read_node_detail or snapshot_comp.

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