explain_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only inspection and discloses a meaningful behavior (only non-default parameters are reported), but never explicitly states it is read-only, nor does it mention permissions or any side effects. Some behavioral value, but gaps remain.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates the returned content with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description names the three content categories returned. For a simple one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only the undocumented 'path' parameter keeps it from a 5.

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 single required 'path' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions or defines it. The agent can infer 'path' is a node path from 'a node', but no format, scope, or example is provided to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get... explanation') and resource ('a node'), and enumerates what the explanation contains: type, non-default parms, connections. It does not differentiate from the closely related sibling get_node_info, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the description alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative get_node_info or get_parameter. Usage is only implied by the listed content, leaving the agent to guess when this is preferable to other node-inspection tools.

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