ms_node_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (JSON node definition with pins and defaults) and stresses the name must be exact, but says nothing about read-only nature, where valid names come from, or failure behavior for an unknown name.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact Args/Returns block. Structured and efficient; the Args/Returns headers are slightly formal but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the definition is nearly self-sufficient. The remaining gap is that it never tells the agent where a valid exact node name originates (the ms_search_nodes/ms_list_nodes siblings).

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?

With 0% schema coverage on the single parameter, the description must compensate and largely does: it specifies the argument is the 'Exact node name' and supplies two concrete examples ('Biquad Filter', 'Wave Player (Mono)'), which meaningfully exceeds the bare schema type: string.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (full details for a specific MetaSounds node), and the word 'specific' implicitly separates it from list/search siblings like ms_list_nodes and ms_search_nodes. It stops short of naming those alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 only implied: call it when you already have a node name and need full details. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to ms_search_nodes or ms_list_nodes for discovering node names, which is the natural prerequisite.

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