get_mindmap_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: no statement that it is read-only, no error behavior for missing nodes, no permission requirements. "EXPERIMENTAL" is the one useful disclosure, hinting at instability, but nothing else about the call's behavior is given.

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, front-loaded with the operation and followed by a caveat – no wasted words. Brevity here is under-specification rather than true concision, since critical parameter and behavior details are absent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the description still omits parameter meaning, read-only status, and node/board relationships. For a two-required-parameter retrieval tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, this is far from complete.

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 both required parameters (board_id, item_id) are undocumented in the schema, yet the description adds no meaning either. An agent must guess whether item_id is the node's ID, a parent item, or something else, and how it relates to board_id.

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?

"Get one mind map node" states a verb and resource, and "one" implies single-item retrieval as opposed to sibling list_mindmap_nodes. But the phrasing largely restates the tool name and doesn't explain what a mind map node is in relation to get_item or the other mindmap siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus list_mindmap_nodes, get_item, or the other node retrievers. The only usage signal is the "EXPERIMENTAL" tag, which implies caution but doesn't say when the tool should or shouldn't be called.

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