Get n8n node schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the output variations ('minimal', 'standard', 'full') and the 'propertyQuery' search capability, but it does not mention error handling (e.g., unknown node type), whether data is fetched live from a registry, or any rate limits or permissions. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses concise, informative language. Examples and parameter definitions are integrated without unnecessary verbosity.

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 and the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return behavior (schema at different detail levels). It could further specify the exact response structure or error behavior for unknown node types, but for a schema retrieval tool, the current description is largely 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?

All three parameters (nodeType, detail, propertyQuery) receive meaningful semantic explanations in the description, going beyond the schema's bare types. It provides concrete examples for nodeType, defines the three detail values, and explains the purpose of propertyQuery. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the schema for one node type' with specific examples of how to specify the node (short name or full type). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_nodes and list_packages by focusing on a single node's schema rather than searching or listing.

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 provides clear context for using the 'detail' parameter and the 'propertyQuery' parameter, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_nodes. The phrase 'Use propertyQuery to search within one node's properties instead' is a within-tool guidance, not a tool selection guideline. Thus, usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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