get_node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds significant behavioral context: token ranges for detail levels (minimal ~200 tokens, standard ~1-2K, full ~3-8K), and what each mode does (e.g., 'docs (markdown documentation)', 'search_properties (find properties)'). No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose, the second lists detail levels and modes with examples. It is front-loaded, dense, and contains no redundant information.

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?

The description covers main modes and detail levels adequately for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. However, it has a minor inconsistency: it says 'Use format='docs'' but the schema parameter is named 'mode'. Also, version modes (compare, breaking, migrations) are listed but not explained. Overall, functional but could be clearer.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing token estimates for detail levels and usage examples like 'mode='search_properties' with propertyQuery'. This aids understanding of parameter behavior.

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: 'Get node info with progressive detail levels and multiple modes.' It specifies detail levels (minimal, standard, full) and modes (info, docs, search_properties, etc.), making the function distinct from siblings like 'n8n_get_node_config' or 'search_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?

The description provides explicit usage advice: 'Use format='docs' for readable documentation, mode='search_properties' with propertyQuery for finding specific fields.' It implies when to use different modes and detail levels, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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