get_node_info

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

Annotations already confirm read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations: combo lists are capped at 24 choices by default, choices_filter is substring-based and case-insensitive, and it is applied to every combo of the node. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to correctly interpret limited results.

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 tightly organized and every sentence conveys operational value. It front-loads what the tool returns, then covers batching efficiency, single vs batch return shape, and list-cap behavior without repetition or 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?

For a four-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers all parameters in practice, explains both invocation modes and their return structures, and clarifies the only surprising behavior (cap and filtering of combo choices). Nothing critical is left to inference.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description carries the parameter semantics, and it does so well for class_type, class_types, and choices_filter. The only ambiguity is max_choices: the schema default is 0 while the text says 24 is the default cap, leaving it unclear whether max_choices=0 means 'use the default cap' or 'no limit'.

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 identifies the resource as node-class schemas and enumerates exactly what is returned: slot names, types, widget defaults/ranges, combo choices, and tooltips. It further distinguishes single vs batch return shapes, which makes the tool's behavior unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools.

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 gives explicit usage direction: batch lookups with class_types when multiple schemas are needed, and use choices_filter/max_choices to control long combo lists. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusionary conditions, so the when-to-use guidance is clear but not fully comparative.

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