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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return components (node, edges, gotchas, etc.), which adds some context, but fails to cover critical aspects like error handling, permissions, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a knowledge base.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get a knowledge node by ID') and then lists the return components. There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context. Without annotations or an output schema, it doesn't fully compensate for these gaps, resulting in a mediocre completeness score.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented as a 'Node UUID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or validation rules. Since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('knowledge node by ID'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_knowledge' or 'get_briefing', which might also retrieve knowledge-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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, such as needing a node ID, or compare it to siblings like 'search_knowledge' for broader queries or 'get_briefing' for different data types, leaving the agent with minimal usage context.

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