node_plugin_get_shared_list_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing. The 'GET' verb implies a read-only operation, but the description never states auth requirements, behavior when the name does not exist, or whether the lookup is case-sensitive or scoped per node/plugin.

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-loads the operation name, so there is no padding. However, the second and third lines (HTTP route and 'Tags: Node Plugins Controller') are transport/implementation artifacts that do not help an agent decide or call the tool.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description says nothing about the returned shared-list object, error behavior for unknown names, or how records are scoped. A rapid OpenAPI-to-tool conversion left the agent without enough context to use it confidently.

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% for the single required 'name' parameter, and the description adds no meaning such as whether the name is a path-like identifier, whether it is case-sensitive, or how it interacts with the pattern ^[A-Za-z0-9_-]+(/[A-Za-z0-9_-]+)*$. The constraints live only in the raw schema, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name: 'Get Shared List by name' adds no information beyond what node_plugin_get_shared_list_by_name already conveys. The only extra content is the raw HTTP route and a controller tag, which do not explain what a shared list is or how this differs from the sibling node_plugin_get_all_shared_lists.

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 use this tool versus node_plugin_get_all_shared_lists or node_plugin_get_config_by_uuid. The only implied usage comes from the name itself (retrieve one list when you know its name); nothing states prerequisites or exclusions.

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