get_node_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get detailed information' without specifying what 'detailed' entails, whether it returns raw node data, any permission requirements, or how it handles invalid/unspecified node IDs. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 superfluous words. It uses a clear verb and object and is appropriately concise for the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives only a high-level statement and fails to convey what kind of 'detailed information' is returned, how detailLevel affects output, or any edge cases (e.g., when nodeId is required). This leaves an agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond confirming the tool operates on a 'specific node'. It does not explain the meaning of properties or detailLevel beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific node'), and clarifies node types ('component, frame, etc.'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_file_info or extract_styles, which target different resources. This is a precise, action-oriented statement.

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 minimal context about when to use this tool (for a specific node) but offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives to prefer. Sibling tools exist for different resources (validate_token, get_assets, etc.), but no direct exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. This falls short of clear usage guidance.

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