Get Node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the exact return fields (name, full name, IP, group, model, vars, last backup run details), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose potential errors (e.g., node not found) or any rate limits, but given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no waste. The first sentence states the core function, and the second lists the return fields. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool does and what it returns. The only minor gap is not mentioning error cases, but for a read-only single-node fetch, this is acceptable. The output schema likely covers return structure, so the description doesn't need to.

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 the schema already documents the 'node' parameter with an example. The description doesn't add much beyond what the schema provides, but it does mention that the node can be identified by name or IP, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 function: 'Get details of a single Oxidized node.' It specifies the resource (a single node) and the verb (get), and distinguishes it from siblings like list_nodes and find_nodes by focusing on a single node's details. The description also enumerates the returned fields, making the purpose 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 implies usage for retrieving details of a single node, which is distinct from listing or searching nodes. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context signals and sibling names provide enough clarity. The description could be improved by explicitly mentioning that this is for a single node, not a list, but the 'single' qualifier already does that.

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