add_map_values_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the action (adds a node), the resulting node behavior (copies all map values to an array), and the return semantics (returns an array of all values). It does not discuss side effects or prerequisites, but for a node-adding utility this is reasonably 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 and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a semantics sentence, an Args list, a KB pointer, and a concrete example. Every section adds value, and the critical 'copies all values to array' meaning is front-loaded.

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?

Given the simplicity of the operation, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. All parameters are documented, the optional node_position has a default and format, the KB reference provides deeper context, and the example anchors usage. An output schema exists, so return value details are not the description's responsibility.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate fully. It does: each parameter is explained in the Args block (blueprint_name, map_variable, node_position), and the example shows a realistic call with a blueprint path and map variable. This gives an agent actionable meaning beyond the raw schema fields.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a Map VALUES node - copy all Map values to an Array.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling add_map_keys_node by explicitly focusing on values rather than keys. The additional 'Returns an array of all values in the map' clarifies the node's behavior precisely.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to add a node that copies all map values into an array. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'Map VALUES' phrasing and the contrast with sibling tools like add_map_keys_node make the appropriate use case evident.

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