n8n_get_node_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by specifying the returned data (parameters, type, position) and efficiency benefit ('without downloading the entire workflow'). However, it doesn't cover error behavior or prerequisites like workflow existence, keeping it from a 5.

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, front-loaded with the core action and output, immediately followed by usage alternatives. Every sentence serves a purpose with zero waste.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return value (parameters, type, position, metadata) and provides usage context. It lacks discussion of edge cases (e.g., node not found) but is adequate for a simple read-only tool with robust annotations.

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 descriptions for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; the mention of 'specific parameter fields to return' merely echoes the fields parameter description. No new semantic value is provided.

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 retrieves a single node's full configuration by name, listing returned elements (parameters, type, position, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling n8n_get_workflow and mentions the filtered mode for multiple nodes, making its purpose specific and distinct.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this instead of n8n_get_workflow(mode="full") when you only need one node's config' and mentions the alternative mode for multiple nodes, giving clear context and exclusions.

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