list_mindmap_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the API is experimental, that style/node_view_style fields may be null when Miro omits fill/stroke data, and links to documented limitations. However it omits auth/permission needs, pagination, and rate-limit behavior.

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 core purpose and the sibling differentiation before detail. It is somewhat long on return-field minutiae (nodeColor/border, fillOpacity, etc.), but every sentence remains relevant to correct invocation.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe returns, and it does so adequately (node IDs, parents, text, positions, style fields and their nullability). The main residual gap is guidance on permissions or pagination for large boards.

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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter (board_id) fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (Lists) and resource (native Miro mind map widget nodes) and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling list_board_items by explaining that mind maps are text-based hierarchical nodes with auto-managed connectors. An agent can select it correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context ('Use this to read an existing mind map') and contrasts with the generic board-items tool, effectively routing the agent. It stops short of naming explicit when-not conditions or other sibling alternatives like create_mindmap_node/update_mindmap_node.

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