RALE: Get Node by ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond those by disclosing the auto-connect side effect, the lookup scope (running Dev App via App Connector), and the path disambiguation behavior for non-globally-unique ids. It opens with 'Read-only,' which is consistent with readOnlyHint=true — no contradiction with annotations.

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 single ~115-word paragraph front-loads purpose and alternative routing before the parameter explanations, so the most decision-relevant information comes first. The parameter sentence slightly overlaps with the 100%-covered schema, but it adds disambiguation and default-behavior nuance that the schema lacks, so the length is justified rather than padded.

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?

For a read-only, 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers operation, prerequisites, parameter defaults, disambiguation logic, and the boundary with rale_command. Return shape is hinted ('its fields / children'), and error behavior is omitted, which is acceptable at this complexity level given the strong annotations and fully described schema.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that path is for disambiguation 'when the id is not globally unique' and that omit/[] means 'global lookup' — a step beyond the schema's 'use [] or omit for root.' It also specifies the device default ('omit for the focused tab'), which the schema's 'for a specific Dev Studio device tab' does not convey.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'fetch one SceneGraph node (its fields / children) by its id from the running Dev App via the App Connector.' It also explicitly frames itself as a 'convenience wrapper over rale_command getNodeById,' which distinguishes it from the generic sibling rale_command. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Provides explicit routing guidance: 'Use this — not the general rale_command — for the common inspect-one-node case; drop to rale_command only for other RALE built-ins (registry, focus, other queries).' The prerequisite is also stated ('Requires a connected App Connector session (auto-connects if needed)'), leaving no ambiguity about when to select this tool over its alternative.

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