list_nodes

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the filtering semantics (prefix and/or kind) and the return format (JSON array of node dicts); it does not mention pagination or empty-filter behavior, but for a read-only list these are secondary.

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?

Starts with a one-sentence summary, then pair of :param lines and a :return line. No filler; the kind enumeration is the only length, and it is necessary for correct use.

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 an output schema present, return values are already covered; the description adds the filter behavior and parameter details that the schema lacks. It is complete enough for successful invocation, though it could note whether empty filters return all nodes.

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 no descriptions and 0% coverage, so the description fully compensates. It defines module_path as a prefix filter with a concrete example and enumerates all valid kind values.

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 precise action ('List nodes') and the two filter axes (module path prefix and kind). This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_node or find_node, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

Implies use for retrieving a filtered set of nodes rather than a single node or a free-text query, but never explicitly contrasts it with siblings or states when to prefer it. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided.

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