get_node_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get' strongly implies a non-mutating read, and the output schema covers return structure, but the description says nothing about side effects, permissions, or whether the node must be cooked/loaded, leaving behavioral characteristics implied rather than stated.

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 compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is partly what leaves the parameter and usage gaps.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the return shape need not be explained, and the field list covers the essentials. However, for a node-inspection tool sitting among many similar siblings, the missing path semantics and lack of routing guidance leave the definition only minimally complete.

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 0% for the single 'path' parameter, and the description does not compensate at all. It never explains whether 'path' is a node path (e.g. /obj/geo1), a file path, or something else, which is the one piece of information an agent most needs to call this correctly.

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') and resource ('node info') and enumerates the four returned facets (type, parameters, inputs, outputs), so the agent knows what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as explain_node, get_parameter, or get_parameter_schema, so it falls short of a 5.

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 and no mention of alternatives, despite several overlapping siblings (explain_node for narrative explanation, get_parameter/get_parameter_schema for individual parameters, find_nodes/list_node_types for discovery). The agent must infer the choice entirely from the name.

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