x3d_node_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly conveys this is a read-only lookup by stating it 'returns' information and does not imply any mutation. It details the output components, but does not mention error behavior for invalid node names, which keeps it slightly below a 5.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes an args section with examples. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has a simple one-parameter input and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return structure. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics completely, making it well-suited for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining node_name is case-sensitive, requires exact naming, and provides multiple examples. This gives the agent complete parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 retrieves detailed X3D node specification info, listing specific return content (component, inheritance, fields, link). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like x3d_search_nodes (which searches) and x3d_field_type_info (which focuses on field types).

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 explicitly advises using this tool before generating X3D content to ensure correct field names/types/values, providing clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient for a lookup tool.

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