Get Node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only lookup and 'optional relationship includes' hints at response enrichment, but it discloses nothing about missing-node behavior, unpublished/access-restricted content, or output shape beyond that hint.

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 with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the gaps noted above rather than purely a virtue.

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 not be explained. Still, with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the include parameter's vocabulary and the lookup's failure/permission behavior unspecified for a tool whose parameters are otherwise undocumented.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does map both parameters at a high level ('by ID' for nid, 'optional relationship includes' for include), but gives no value syntax for include (comma-separated names? which relationships?), leaving the agent to guess the accepted format.

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'), resource ('node'), and scope ('single node by ID'), which cleanly separates it from query_nodes (plural search) and create_node/update_node/delete_node. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the singular-by-ID framing makes the distinction self-evident.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'by ID' phrasing signals a point lookup rather than a filtered list, so an agent can infer this is the tool for fetching one known node. However, it never states when to prefer this over query_nodes or what to do if the ID is unknown.

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