node_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It declares '[READ]' indicating a safe read operation, and lists the output fields, which is sufficient for a list tool. No side effects or hidden behaviors are mentioned, but none are expected.

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 extremely concise: a single line with purpose and fields, followed by a one-line parameter explanation. No unnecessary words, perfectly front-loaded with the most important information.

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 tool's simplicity (list with one optional param) and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, what it returns (fields listed), and the parameter. It could mention potential errors or pagination, but the lack does not significantly hinder usability.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so for the only parameter 'target' with a clear explanation: 'k8s target name from config; omit to use the default.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type definition.

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 'List cluster nodes' and enumerates the fields returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like node_describe which targets a single node. The '[READ]' prefix explicitly marks it as a read operation.

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 implies usage for listing all nodes, contrasting with node_describe for a specific node, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The optional target parameter is briefly explained.

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