get_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that lookup is by exact qname, unique bare name, or path:line (a precision constraint), but says nothing about failure behavior for ambiguous bare names or missing symbols, and no output schema explanation is needed. Moderate disclosure only.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the list of accepted forms appended. No waste, though slightly terse given the naming ambiguity of 'target'.

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 need not be explained. For a single-param lookup tool the description covers the main need (accepted identifier formats) but omits error/ambiguity behavior and any sibling differentiation, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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 0% and the single parameter is named just 'target'. The description compensates well by enumerating the three accepted identifier formats (qname, unique bare name, path:line), which is essential to using the parameter correctly.

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?

States a specific verb (look up) and resource (one symbol), and reveals the accepted identifier forms. It does not name or contrast with siblings like search_nodes or query_graph, so an agent must infer when to prefer this over a search tool.

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 accepted input forms imply usage (exact identifiers, not fuzzy search), which hints at when to use this vs search_nodes, but no when-to-use or exclusion guidance is stated.

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