get_user_accessible_nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the '[READ]' tag merely repeats that. Beyond the raw HTTP route, the description discloses nothing about ordering, pagination, empty-result behavior, or what 'accessible' means operationally, which matters for a per-user listing.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the '[READ] GET ...' line is redundant with the annotation and consumes half the description without adding information. Terseness here reads as under-specification rather than economy.

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?

With no output schema, no annotation detail beyond read-only, and 0% parameter documentation, the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It never explains the return shape, the meaning of accessibility, or error conditions for an invalid/reserved userId.

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 0%, so the schema only conveys type and exclusivity for userId. The description's route template '/api/users/:userId/...' hints that userId is a user identifier used as a path segment, but adds no format, range, or resolution guidance (e.g. whether it must come from find_user).

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('get user accessible nodes'), which is enough to distinguish it loosely from get_nodes or get_internal_squad_accessible_nodes. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings or defines what makes a node 'accessible' to a user, leaving the scope implied rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. that userId must resolve to an existing user), and no mention of alternatives such as get_nodes for unfiltered node lists. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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