Fodda

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves metadata and properties, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs (e.g., based on userId), rate limits, error handling, or what specific metadata/properties are returned. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There is no wasted information, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and a read-focused tool, the description adequately covers the basic operation but lacks details on behavioral traits like permissions or limits. It's minimally viable for a retrieval tool but could be more complete by addressing usage context or behavioral nuances.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters (graphId, nodeId, userId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions, formats, or examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra description.

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 action ('Directly retrieve') and resource ('metadata and properties for a single node by its ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'get_neighbors' or 'search_graph', which might also retrieve node-related information but with different scopes or methods.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions retrieving a single node by ID, but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over sibling tools like 'get_neighbors' (for related nodes) or 'search_graph' (for broader queries), leaving the agent without explicit usage context.

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