tigergraph__get_node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful return-context ('Checking current attribute values', 'Fetching details before updating') but does not disclose error behavior or not-found handling, which would have strengthened transparency.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by well-scoped Use When bullets, a compact Quick Start example, and a Related Tools section. It is longer than the minimum but each section serves a purpose and no content is redundant enough to hurt clarity.

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 single-node read with annotations covering safety and schema covering all parameters, the description provides sufficient invocation context, use cases, and sibling differentiators. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the description's mention of attribute values and details, though not-found behavior is still left implicit.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents vertex_type, vertex_id, graph_name, and profile. The description's mention of type and ID and the Quick Start JSON add a concrete usage example but no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific verb and target resource: 'Get a single node (vertex) from a TigerGraph graph by its type and ID.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by naming get_nodes, has_node, and get_node_edges in Related Tools, so an agent can tell them apart without opening 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 'Use When' section gives concrete scenarios such as retrieving a specific entity by ID and verifying a vertex was created. It does not explicitly state when to prefer get_nodes or has_node over this tool, but the Related Tools section provides enough context for an agent to infer the main alternatives.

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