get_nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds modest value by noting the default is a 'compact view' and that full:true yields a 'raw panel response (large)', giving a sense of payload size, but says nothing about pagination, filtering, or result fields.

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?

Two short lines that are front-loaded with the resource and endpoint, with no wasted prose. It is terse but everything present earns its place, though the terseness borders on under-specification.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with annotations and a fully documented schema, this is roughly adequate, and the compact-vs-full distinction is the key behavioral fact. Still, with no output schema and dense node-related siblings, more scope clarification would help an agent call it correctly.

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% and the single 'full' parameter already carries the description 'Return the raw panel response (large)'. The description largely restates that same semantics ('pass full: true for the raw panel response'), so it adds little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('nodes') plus the underlying endpoint GET /api/nodes/, so the operation is identifiable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from close siblings like get_node (singular), get_user_accessible_nodes, or get_nodes_metrics, leaving the agent to infer scope from the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use get_nodes versus get_node or the other node-related siblings. The only conditional hint ('pass full: true for the raw panel response') concerns a parameter, not tool selection, so usage guidance is essentially absent.

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