describe_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the difference between summary and raw output, warns about the potentially huge size of full option lists (199k characters), and implies that summaries may be truncated. It could also explicitly state the tool is read-only, though 'look up' strongly implies this.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement and then logically flowing into usage context and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words or repetition.

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?

The description is complete for a lookup tool. It explains what the tool returns, how to use it with related tools, and the trade-offs of the 'full' parameter. An output schema exists, so detailed return values are not needed in the description. The tool's simplicity and good documentation make this fully adequate.

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 schema provides only basic types and titles, and the context signals show 0% schema description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It does: class_type is explained as 'the node's class name, e.g., KSampler,' and full is described as returning the raw /object_info entry with important caveats about size and completeness.

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's purpose: 'Look up one node type: its inputs, their valid values, and what it outputs.' It distinguishes itself from related tools by referencing find_node_types for obtaining class_type and by explaining how describe_node fits into the workflow with add_workspace_node and run_workflow.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use before wiring a node in with add_workspace_node, or to check allowed combo values... before passing them to run_workflow.' It also clarifies the relationship to find_node_types and advises when to use the 'full' parameter, providing clear context and exclusions.

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