nodes_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it explicitly labels the operation as '[READ]' and explains the optional status mapping and default target behavior. It does not disclose response formatting or error behavior, but for a read-only list operation the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact, front-loaded with the operation, and uses a clean Args block where every line provides non-redundant information. No wasted words.

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 simple two-parameter read-only list call, the description provides the essential invocation details: what it lists, the optional filter, and target default. It lacks response shape/fields and any alternative-tool routing, but these are not blockers for correct invocation.

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 provides only type/null defaults with no descriptions (0% coverage), while the description adds concrete meaning: status values 1=Up, 2=Down, 3=Warning, and target as a SolarWinds target name from config with a documented default behavior. This fully compensates for the sparse schema.

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 opens with '[READ] List SolarWinds nodes, optionally filtered by status,' which names a specific verb and resource. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish nodes_list from sibling tools such as node_status or list_unmanaged.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage hint is the status filter, which is a parameter explanation rather than a selection guideline.

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