Get node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms this is a read operation, but it does not disclose response behavior, error cases (e.g., node not found), authentication needs, or any other operational traits beyond what 'Get' already implies.

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, front-loaded sentence that identifies the action, resource, and identifying parameter with no wasted words. The included documentation link is relevant and provides an easy path for additional context without cluttering the description.

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 get-by-name tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the operation, the resource, and the required lookup key, and provides a documentation link. It could be more complete by noting what happens when the node does not exist, but the overall context is adequate for a low-complexity read operation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does connect the single parameter 'name' to the lookup key for the node record, which is some added meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not add any format, constraints, or examples beyond the parameter name itself.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single Longhorn node record'), and the lookup key ('by name'), which clearly differentiates it from node_list and node_update. It is immediately obvious what the tool does and how it differs from sibling tools.

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 implies usage when a single node record is needed by name, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like node_list or node_update. No guidance on when not to use it is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the sibling names.

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