e2e_get_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the shape of returned data (specs, status, IPs, disks, security groups), but omits auth/permission requirements, error or not-found behavior, and any rate or consistency notes for a same-name read operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the operation, the key input, and the returned payload 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?

For a simple single-resource get with no output schema and no annotations, listing the returned fields compensates well. Remaining gaps (error behavior, auth requirements, role of the optional location/project_id) are minor for a read tool of this scope.

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 already documents node_id, location, and project_id. The description only reinforces 'by its ID' and adds no format, valid-ID syntax, or conditional handling for location/project_id beyond the schema.

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 (compute node) scoped to a single node by ID, and enumerates the returned fields (specs, status, IPs, disks, security groups). This is clearly distinct from list-style siblings like e2e_list_nodes, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'by its ID' implies the retrieval use case versus a list operation, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e2e_list_nodes, e2e_get_node_health), and no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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