get_node

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing that truncation is explicit and by enumerating the content categories returned, though it does not explain how truncation is triggered or controlled.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the truncation caveat attached. Nothing redundant.

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 three-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is adequate but incomplete: it says truncation happens yet omits that depth/maxNodes control it, leaving an agent without guidance on the very parameters that shape the response.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. It clarifies that the ID may reference a node or a page (partial help for nodeId), but depth and maxNodes — which govern the truncation it mentions — are left completely undocumented.

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 ('Read') and resource ('a node or page by ID') and enumerates what is returned (geometry, text, paints, auto layout). It is distinguishable from siblings like find_nodes or get_document, but it never names or contrasts with them explicitly.

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 by 'by ID' — an agent can infer this is for direct lookup rather than search, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as find_nodes.

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