List 1Panel Nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the returned set is the local main node plus connected X-Pack child nodes, and the key field `id` is the identifier other tools consume. It doesn't discuss failure modes when a child node is disconnected, but the gap is minor for a zero-arg read.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The resource definition comes first and the actionable output-consumption hint second, which is the right ordering for an agent skimming the definition.

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 usefully characterizes the return set (main node 'local' plus child nodes by numeric string ID) and names the key field. It does not say what other per-node attributes come back (name, status, version), but that is not needed to call the tool correctly.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description's mention of `id`/`nodeId` refers to output values rather than inputs, which does not hurt.

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 concrete verb and resource ('List the Main Node ... and all connected X-Pack Child Nodes') and even defines membership: the main node is 'local', child nodes have numeric string IDs. This is clearly distinct from the domain-specific list_* siblings such as list_websites or list_installed_apps.

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 explicit downstream guidance: 'Use the returned `id` as `nodeId` in other tools,' which tells the agent why and when to call this before other node-scoped operations. It stops short of a when-not-to-use statement, though no obvious alternative tool exists for the same data.

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