list_nodes

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

The description adds the return format and scope ('all connected') beyond what annotations provide, but does not disclose other behavioral details such as pagination, rate limits, or permissions. Given the annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, the description adds moderate value without being comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. It is concise and well-structured.

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 read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the primary behavior and return format. Since there is no output schema, stating the return type is valuable. It could be more explicit about accepted network values, but the schema covers that parameter, making the description sufficiently complete.

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 input schema already provides a description for the only parameter 'network' (100% schema coverage). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema states, so the schema carries the burden and the description adds no extra value.

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 the tool lists all connected node addresses on the TRON network and specifies the return format (array of IP:port strings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node_info, which likely returns detailed info about a specific node.

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 the tool is for retrieving node addresses, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or identify exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned, leaving usage context only implied.

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