get_node_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose permissions, error behavior for invalid node IDs, access restrictions, or any other behavioral traits an agent should anticipate.

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 with no filler or repetition. It is concise and easy to parse, though the brevity comes at the expense of useful detail.

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?

Even though the tool is simple and has an output schema, the definition lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral context. With no annotations, this sparse description is not enough for an agent to invoke the tool reliably in all situations.

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 provides only 'node_id' as a string, and the description does not explicitly explain what node_id is or how to obtain it. The phrase 'document or folder' gives some clue about the node type, but the parameter format and provenance are left undocumented.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('metadata and properties of a document or folder'), distinguishing it from mutation tools like update_node_properties and delete_node. It does not explicitly differentiate it from retrieval alternatives like browse_repository or search_content, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention how to obtain a node_id, whether to use browse_repository or search first, or any prerequisites for calling this tool.

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