get_node_config

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

Annotations indicate read-only and open-world hints, but the description adds valuable context: it discloses that sensitive fields are redacted, specifies it's an admin action, and states it requires an Application API key. These details go beyond annotations, enhancing transparency about security and access requirements.

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 core purpose, followed by key behavioral details (redaction, admin action, usage context, API key requirement). Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (admin action with security considerations), annotations cover read-only/open-world aspects, but no output schema exists. The description compensates by explaining the return content (config.yml with redactions) and prerequisites (API key), making it mostly complete, though it could note potential errors or response formats.

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%, with the parameter 'node_id' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Wings daemon configuration for a node', specifying it returns config.yml content. It distinguishes from siblings like get_node or get_server by focusing on daemon configuration rather than general node/server details.

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 provides explicit usage context ('when setting up or troubleshooting a node'), which helps guide when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as get_node for general node information.

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