get_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 simply states that it gets information, but does not mention whether the node must exist, how errors are handled, whether any permissions are required, or what constitutes 'detailed information.' The read-only nature is implied by 'Get,' but not explicitly stated, and no other behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the response contains, what happens if the node name is invalid, or how the result relates to sibling tools. The tool is simple, but a bit more context about the return value or typical use would make it 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 fully documents the single parameter nodeName, including an example. The description adds 'by its name,' which just reiterates the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not meaningfully enhance the parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving detailed information about a specific node type by name. The verb 'Get' plus the resource 'specific node type' makes the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_nodes and get_nodes_by_category by focusing on a single named node.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that list_nodes can be used to discover available node names or that get_nodes_by_category is the appropriate tool when filtering by category. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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