get_node_configs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only behavior is established. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as response shape, error conditions, or authorization requirements, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentence with no filler and is appropriately front-loaded. It is concise and easy to parse, though it could have included a brief sibling distinction without becoming verbose.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the annotations and schema cover the safety profile and required inputs. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify what the returned configuration contains or how it differs from other node-related tools, leaving a moderate gap.

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%, with both nodeId and cluster documented in the input schema. The description adds no further parameter meaning, such as the relationship between the cluster and node ID or how to obtain valid node IDs, so it stays at the baseline.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get configuration for a node.' It identifies what the tool returns without ambiguity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_node, get_nodes, or post_node_configs, so it falls short of a 5.

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 such as get_node, get_nodes, or post_node_configs. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent choose between similar node-related tools.

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