Get Node Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no new behavioral details beyond the read operation and the workspace_id constraint, which is more about usage than behavior. It does not disclose side effects or response format.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous information. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 simple 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, required context, and returned elements. However, it omits details about the response structure (e.g., JSON fields), which would be helpful since no output schema is provided.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the rationale for workspace_id ('prevents cross-workspace ambiguity'), which aids the agent in understanding parameter importance. For node_id, it implies what the node contains (attached IDs) but does not add syntax details.

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 explicitly states the tool returns a single node with associated ID lists, distinguishing it from siblings like pathrule_get_tree which returns the entire tree. The verb 'Return' and resource 'node' are specific.

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?

It mentions the requirement for workspace_id to prevent ambiguity, which is a clear usage hint. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like pathrule_get_tree for full tree retrieval, leaving some ambiguity.

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