Get Dynamic Node Outcomes

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true. The description adds beyond annotations by explaining that the tool calculates outcomes based on node configuration, implying a read-only computation. It does not contradict annotations, and it provides useful behavioral context (no destructive effects).

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, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the function, giving usage guidance, and explaining the benefit. No unnecessary words, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no output schema and complex nested parameters, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool returns (dynamic outcomes for connections) and how to structure inputs for different node types. It is complete enough for an AI agent to understand the tool's role.

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%, but the description adds significant value by providing examples of config structures for different node types (PageNode, ChoiceCollectorNode) and referencing getNodeTypeDetails for more details. This clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 calculates dynamic outcomes for nodes based on configuration, using specific verbs like 'calculate' and resource 'dynamic node outcomes'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by listing example use cases (PageNode, ChoiceCollectorNode) and explaining its role in journey building.

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 guidance on when to use the tool: for nodes whose outcomes depend on their config, with concrete examples. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, the context of sibling tools (like getNodeTypeDetails) implies its specific purpose.

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