nodes.get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a node by ID but doesn't describe what happens if the ID is invalid (e.g., error handling), whether it's a read-only operation, permissions required, or the format of the returned node data. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the essential information ('Get a specific node by its ID'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what a 'node' is in this context (e.g., part of a workflow, document, or other structure), what data is returned, or error conditions. For a tool with 1 parameter but no structured output information, more context is needed to guide the agent.

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 description mentions 'by its ID', which aligns with the single parameter 'nodeId' in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the schema fully documents 'nodeId' as 'The unique ID of the node'), the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage, but it doesn't elaborate on ID format or constraints.

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') and resource ('a specific node'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'nodes.list' or 'nodes.search' by specifying retrieval by ID rather than listing or searching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'nodes.getByName' or 'nodes.getByType', which are similar retrieval methods but by different criteria.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'nodes.get' over 'nodes.getByName', 'nodes.getByType', 'nodes.list', or 'nodes.search', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid node ID. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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