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

The description discloses the return structure (a JSON object mapping node type to operations with fields like name, description, display_name, category, and guidance), which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also states 'ALL operations' and 'known node type', implying potential errors for unknown types, though not explicitly. Overall, it provides solid behavioral transparency.

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 succinct, comprising three sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose, then provides usage context, and closes with the return format. There is no fluff or 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?

The description covers the core functionality, usage comparison, and return schema, which is sufficient for a simple read-only operation. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., unknown node type), parameter constraints (e.g., array size, values), and does not elaborate on the 'guidance' field. These gaps are minor but could affect a fully autonomous 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 schema for the single parameter 'node_types' has no description, and the tool description only mentions a singular 'node type' while the parameter is an array. It does not explain whether multiple types can be passed, what constitutes a valid node type, or the expected format. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent, requiring additional inference.

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 tool's function: to enumerate all operations of a known node type. It uses the specific verb 'enumerate' and identifies the resource (operations of a node type), making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by calling itself a 'manual fallback'.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance by stating when to prefer alternatives: 'Prefer search_operations for intent-driven lookup, or update_workflow(include_operations=true) while building.' This gives clear direction on when to use this tool versus others, fulfilling the criterion.

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