list_nodes

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, pagination behavior, or the effect of the limit parameter. The only behavioral statement is the return format ('JSON array of matching node dicts'), which is minimal.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence followed by parameter documentation and a return statement. It is not overly verbose and front-loads the core purpose. The use of :param and :return is conventional and scannable.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return structure is covered, but the description omits the limit parameter's behavior and any usage context. Given the many sibling tools, it lacks guidance on when to use list_nodes specifically. The description is adequate for a simple listing operation but misses important operational details like default limits and pagination.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains module_path with an example and enumerates all allowed values for kind. However, it does not explain the limit parameter, which is part of the schema and likely affects output size. The description adds meaning for two of three parameters but leaves one undocumented.

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 clearly states the action ('List nodes') and the resource (nodes) with specific filtering criteria ('by module path prefix and/or kind'). It is specific about what it does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like find_node or get_node, which could also return nodes. The purpose is clear but lacks contrast with similar tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the filtering options, leaving the agent to infer when a list operation is appropriate. There is no mention of scenarios where find_node or query_codebase should be preferred, or any exclusions.

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