get_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait: results are filtered by visibility and restricted relationship IDs are omitted, which signals access-control behavior. However it says nothing about permissions required, what happens for a missing or inaccessible node, or pagination/return shape.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler, and the result scope plus the filtering caveat are front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of detail rather than being genuinely complete.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter mean the description is the only source of truth, and it covers only the filtering behavior. An agent still lacks the identifier format, error behavior, and return structure needed to call this reliably.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate and it does not. node_id's expected format, provenance, and whether it is a graph node, document, or record identifier are never explained.

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?

It names a verb ('Return') and a resource ('node and backlinks'), so the basic operation is inferable. But 'node' is undefined in a sibling set that includes find, read_doc, and open_items, so an agent cannot tell what kind of object a node is or how this differs from read_doc without guessing.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus find, read_doc, or open_items, and no prerequisite guidance (e.g., where a node_id comes from). Usage is left entirely to inference from the tool name.

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