Get Node Config

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

The description discloses a non-obvious pagination behavior: large configurations are paged by lines, and the caller must follow 'truncated' and 'next_offset' to fetch all data. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations and explains exactly how to handle partial results.

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: the first states the core purpose, the second gives the necessary paging detail. No wasted words and the most important behavioral information is front-loaded.

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 simple, read-only nature of the tool, the fully documented input schema, the output schema, and annotations, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly. The pagination caveat is the main non-obvious detail, and it is included.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by clarifying how 'offset' interacts with 'truncated' and 'next_offset', giving the agent a fuller mental model of pagination than the schema alone provides.

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 resource ('latest backed-up configuration of a node') and the action ('Get'), so an agent can understand what the tool returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_node or get_node_version, though the phrase 'backed-up configuration' narrows the scope.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_node, list_node_versions, or get_node_version. The intended use case is only implied by the name and subject matter, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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