get_node

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: it specifies this is an 'admin action' (implying elevated permissions), mentions the authentication requirement ('Requires Application API key'), and lists the specific fields returned (name, FQDN, etc.). This goes beyond what annotations provide without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and return fields, second provides usage guidance, third specifies authentication. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct, necessary information.

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 read-only tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage workflow, authentication, and return data structure. The only minor gap is lack of output schema, but the description compensates by listing return fields. It could slightly improve by mentioning error cases or rate limits.

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 fully documents the single parameter. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'node_id' comes 'from list_nodes', but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get detailed information'), the resource ('specific infrastructure node'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for a single node (vs. list_nodes for multiple). It also mentions it's an 'admin action' which provides context about the tool's role.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use list_nodes to find the node ID first') and provides prerequisites ('Requires Application API key'). This gives clear guidance on the workflow and authentication requirements.

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