list_meta_sound_nodes

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds the meaningful scoping that only the default graph is traversed and details what each node record contains. The 'Read-only' clause mostly restates the annotation, and no output schema exists, so the inline Returns block does real work here.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope in the first clause, then the downstream handoff, then the return shape. Tight overall, with only minor redundancy from the 'Read-only' restatement of the annotation.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the exact return shape (metasound_path, count, nodes[]) and the follow-up tool. An agent has everything needed to call it and consume the result without opening anything else.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage — the schema already documents metasound_path with an example and the constraint that MetaSound Patches are rejected. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List every node in the default graph of a MetaSound Source asset,' and enumerates the returned fields (GUID id, name, class name, input/output counts, plus count). The 'default graph' scoping and 'list' verb distinguish it cleanly from sibling get_meta_sound_node_info and list_meta_sound_node_types.

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?

Routes the agent forward explicitly: 'pass the id to get_meta_sound_node_info and the other node tools,' which clarifies this is the entry point of a node-inspection workflow. It lacks an explicit when-not or the alternate conditions that would earn a 5, but the downstream handoff is clear context.

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