VNyan node type schema

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

The description fully compensates for lack of annotations by disclosing the tool's derivation (decompiling Assembly-CSharp), the meaning of 'possiblyIncomplete: true', and that it requires no VNyan connection (offline). It sets appropriate expectations for data quality and operation.

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 moderately concise, using three sentences to convey all necessary information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently packs details about derivation, limitations, and offline operation. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 only one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what it returns, its source, potential incompleteness, and operational mode (offline). No gaps remain for an agent to safely use this tool.

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% for the single parameter, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains the format expected for 'type' (e.g., 'CallTriggerNode'), the effect of omitting it, and what the output contains (socket layout, value keys). This goes beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 explicitly states it looks up a node type's socket layout or lists all types when omitted, using specific verbs and resource details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on different VNyan aspects (avatar, param, etc.), making the purpose clear and unambiguous.

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 context for when to include the 'type' parameter (to see a specific node) versus omit it (to list all types). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, but the context from sibling tools implies it is the sole tool for node schema information.

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