Graph node detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, which indicate safe, repeatable, and open-world semantics. The description adds that the returned data includes v2 derived status on Action nodes, a behavioral detail not covered by annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded with verb and resource. Efficient and clear.

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, single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention that nodeId is the primary key from graph_nodes table, but the schema already does that. Lacks information about pagination or result size, but that's less critical for a single-row fetch.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter nodeId described as 'graph_nodes.id'. The description adds context about what the tool returns (label, type, metadata) but does not enhance understanding of the parameter itself beyond the schema. 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'a single graph node row', specifying fields (label, type, metadata) and including a unique differentiator (v2 derived status on Action nodes). It distinguishes from sibling tools like graph_neighborhood which fetch multiple nodes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like graph_neighborhood or other fetch tools. The description does not mention any context for when a single node fetch is appropriate versus a neighborhood or other query.

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