get_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavior: it returns the complete payload rather than a truncated match, and it discloses session scoping defaults ('Scoped to your session by default; session_scope='project' reads across the project'). It stops short of explicitly confirming it is read-only and says nothing about errors or rate limits, but 'Fetch' plus the scoping detail cover the key expectations.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it fetches, the contrast with summaries, the when-to-use, and scoping behavior. Front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 read-by-id tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it successfully: ids are needed, results are full payloads, and scope behavior is explained. It could be slightly more complete by noting how to obtain/create node ids beyond the posted-results example, but the schema and sibling names fill most gaps.

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 67%, with node_ids and binding_token already described; the description adds value by explaining that node_ids fetch 'whole' nodes with full payload and by giving session_scope its meaning ('current' vs 'project' scope). It does not add anything about binding_token, but the schema description for that parameter is already sufficient.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Fetch whole nodes by id') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling cpg_query ('by-id counterpart to cpg_query's ranked search'). The 'not a truncated match' contrast reinforces that this is the detail retrieval tool, not the 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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use when you hold specific ids' and 'need the recorded detail, not a summary', with a concrete example (result ids a crew posted to a thread). It names cpg_query as the alternative for ranked search, so an agent can route between the two.

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