get_node_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and covers meaningful behavior: imageGeneration status transitions (processing/ready/error), the need to poll for completion, and the error result when the node does not exist. It does not discuss side-effect safety or failure modes beyond missing nodes, but for a read operation the disclosure is strong.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and main return fields, and every sentence adds information about behavior or sibling routing. It is somewhat dense and could be structured into bullet points, but there is no filler.

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?

Without an output schema, the description covers the return shape in enough detail for an agent to know what to expect, including the async image-generation fields. Minor ambiguities such as what 'size' means and lock-state value formats are not clarified, but the overall context is sufficient for a node-info getter.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents nodeId and fileId. The description mostly restates nodeId as 'specific node by ID' and does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema's fileId and nodeId descriptions already provide, so it stays at the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific node by ID,' then enumerates the exact fields returned (size, visibility, lock state, parent, children IDs, text, positions, imageGeneration). This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_basic_info or get_children by the depth and scope of the returned data.

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?

It gives context for the polling workflow ('poll this to know when generation completes') and routes image output to the correct sibling tools ('Raster fills are read with get_fill_image; SVG output is read with get_jsx'). It does not explicitly contrast with get_basic_info or get_children or give a when-not-to-use condition, so it is slightly short of full guidance.

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