nodes_get_nodes

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. The 'GET' verb implies a safe read, but nothing is said about pagination, filtering, auth requirements, or response size for what is presumably a collection 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, but the content is mostly redundant scaffolding (raw route plus a restatement of the name plus a 'Tags:' line) rather than front-loaded useful information. Nothing is wasted, but little is earned either.

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 collection-listing endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description says nothing about return shape, pagination, or ordering. An agent has no basis to decide between this and the numerous other node-related read tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless 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 adds a raw route ('GET /api/nodes') and 'Get nodes', which confirms it retrieves the nodes collection, but 'Get nodes' essentially restates the tool name and gives no scope or differentiation from siblings like nodes_get_node or system_get_nodes_metrics.

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 call this versus the many sibling node tools (nodes_get_node, nodes_get_nodes_tags, system_get_nodes_metrics). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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