get_node_info

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. The 'Get' verb implies a non-mutating read operation, which is the key behavioral trait here. However, it does not disclose what 'full documentation' actually contains (examples, parameters, return format) or what happens with an invalid/unknown type identifier. Adequate for a doc-lookup tool, but not rich.

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?

A single, tight sentence of about 20 words with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the parenthetical examples illustrate the parameter without bloating the text. Every element 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 simple one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description is nearly sufficient: it states the purpose, the required input, and gives concrete examples. The only real gap is that it never describes the shape of the returned 'full documentation' and says nothing about failure behavior for unknown type identifiers, but neither gap is critical for such a self-contained tool.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already defines 'type' as a node type identifier with examples. The description adds marginal value by providing an extra example ('filter') not present in the schema and by clarifying that the identifiers refer to built-in jam-nodes nodes. This is a slight enhancement, not a substantial one.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get full documentation for a specific built-in jam-nodes node by its type identifier'. The phrase 'specific' and the examples ('http_request', 'conditional', 'filter') conceptually separate it from list_nodes and search_docs, though it never names siblings explicitly. Clear and unambiguous, but stops short of the explicit differentiation that earns a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description signals this tool is for retrieving docs when you already have a node type identifier. However, there is no guidance about when NOT to use it or mention of alternatives such as list_nodes for discovering available types or search_docs for general queries, despite those siblings being visible in context.

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