personal_get_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: the response includes complete summary and raw docs without truncation, and `not_found` is returned if the node does not exist. It does not mention auth or side effects, but this is a read-oriented tool and the key error condition is covered.

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 compact and well-structured: main capability first, then usage context, then error behavior. Every sentence adds value and there is no repetitive filler.

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 simple get-by-id tool, the description covers the main purpose, the expected output style, and the not-found case. However, the `only_len` parameter is left unexplained, which is a meaningful gap since it may alter the returned content. The presence of an output schema helps, but parameter semantics remain incomplete.

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 description must compensate. It implies `id` identifies the node, but it never explicitly explains the parameters. More importantly, `only_len` is completely undocumented despite being a boolean that likely changes the response shape; an agent cannot confidently decide whether to set it.

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 resource: it retrieves the complete content of a node, including full summary and raw untruncated docs. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the targeted shortcut after viewing a node on the map via `personal_neighbors`.

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?

It gives clear context for use: after seeing a node in the map with `personal_neighbors`, use this tool to read everything hanging from that node. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the intended workflow is clear enough.

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