node_console

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains what the tool returns (host:port) and clarifies a key limitation: it does not handle the telnet handshake or login. This sets accurate expectations, though it does not mention side effects or permissions, which are likely minimal for a read-only info retrieval.

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 consists of two well-structured sentences. The first states the purpose, and the second provides alternative tools with a specific reason. Every word earns its place, with no filler 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, the description fully covers its purpose, output (connection info), and relationship to related tools. An output schema exists to document the return structure, so the description need not repeat those details. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter (node_id) and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description implies the parameter identifies the node ('a node's console connection info'), which is straightforward given the tool name and context, but it does not explicitly elaborate on the meaning or format of node_id. The single parameter and clear naming compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 retrieves a node's console connection info (telnet/SSH host:port), using a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting that actual command execution should use run_command / console_send + console_read.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to get connection info for CLI interaction. It names alternatives (run_command, console_send, console_read) and states they handle the telnet handshake and login, making the division of responsibility clear.

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