VNyan node type schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It goes far beyond the minimum by disclosing the provenance and reliability of every field: socket counts are 'reliable' from C# fields, dynamicSockets are 'a FLOOR, not a ceiling', valuesUncertain and valuesCountMismatch are heuristics vs. observed data, and possiblyIncomplete explains why values[] may be shorter. This is exceptional transparency for an offline reference tool.

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 long but every sentence earns its place, explaining reliability and verification steps that are crucial for correct usage. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then layers trust levels. It could be trimmed slightly, but the density is justified by the complexity of the data quality warnings, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all needed information: what it does, how to invoke it optionally, what each returned field means, how reliable each is, and how to verify uncertain data with another tool. It even explains edge cases like array sockets and Flex nodes. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly and interpret results is missing.

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 already documents the single parameter with an example and the omit-to-list-all behavior, giving 100% coverage. The description adds value by elaborating on the omission case and providing the '~300 known types' context, which goes beyond the bare schema. It doesn't duplicate the schema text, so this is a 4 rather than a baseline 3.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Looks up a node type's socket layout' and details exactly what data it retrieves. It also distinguishes the behavior when the 'type' parameter is omitted (lists all types), which separates it from sibling tools like vnyan_graph_read or vnyan_graph_write that manipulate graphs rather than inspect schemas.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool and how to interpret results, including explicit guidance to 'confirm the true count with vnyan_graph_read' and to verify suspicious values via vnyan_graph_read. It also explains when the tool does NOT need a VNyan connection. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this instead of X', so it falls short of an explicit when-not-to-use declaration.

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