graph_get_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It describes the tool as 'Get' (implying read-only) but fails to disclose potential cost of deep recursion (via depth parameter) or any forbidden side effects. More explicit statements about non-modification and performance considerations would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned: node, relations, and child nodes. For a graph retrieval tool, this covers the essential components. However, additional details on the response structure (e.g., fields of the node) would enhance completeness for complex graph data.

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 50% (only depth has a description). The tool description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions 'child nodes' but does not clarify how depth controls recursion or describe node_id format. The description adds marginal value, meeting the baseline for medium coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'a node with its relations and child nodes', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like graph_search (which searches) and graph_add (which modifies). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 advises to use the tool 'to inspect a node's full context', providing a specific use case. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar sibling tools like graph_traverse or graph_walk, nor state when not to use it. This leaves some ambiguity for an AI agent choosing among alternatives.

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