explain_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by noting that embeddings are omitted, which indicates a scope limitation. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. The omission of embeddings is a positive step, but more behavioral detail would be expected for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It efficiently lists the relation types and the notable omission of embeddings without superfluous words. It sacrifices some usage guidance for brevity, but the structure is clean and directly on point.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: showing a node and its direct relations. It also discloses the embedding omission. However, it lacks any guidance on error handling, edge cases (e.g., invalid node_id), or how the output is structured beyond what the schema might imply. Still, for a straightforward read tool, it is adequately 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the sole parameter `node_id`, and the description does not explicitly explain its meaning or format. While the action 'Show an Experience Graph node' implies that `node_id` identifies the node, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema's type definition. With 0% coverage, the description should compensate by specifying the parameter's semantics, which it fails to do in any detail.

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 the specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource as an 'Experience Graph node'. It enumerates the direct relation types, making the tool's focus explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_experience or get_execution_context, so the purpose is clear but not uniquely positioned.

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 states what the tool does but offers no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, required permissions, or scenarios where this tool would be preferred over siblings like search_experience or choose_path. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and action, not explained.

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