get_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose that the response includes 'allocations and resource usage', adding value beyond a generic 'get'. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., 404 for unknown node ID), authorization requirements, or other operational traits. This is acceptable for a simple read but not fully transparent.

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 short sentence, highly concise and front-loaded with 'Get details'. It contains no filler or redundant information, every word 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?

The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, so the description needs to cover the essentials. It explains the basic purpose and hints at return content, but fails to clarify the 'id' parameter, which is fundamental. Without that, the description is incomplete for an agent attempting to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has one required parameter 'id' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving it unclear whether the ID is a node ID, allocation ID, or something else. This is a critical gap since the description should compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a single Nomad client node'. It also specifies the included details ('allocations and resource usage'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_nodes (for listing nodes) and get_allocation (for individual allocations).

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 implies the tool is for retrieving details of one specific node, which differentiates it from list_nodes (list all nodes). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5. The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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