List nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it lists only connected nodes, includes status and Xray version, and that bandwidth usage is scoped to the given period, defaulting to all-time when both parameters are omitted.

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 with no filler. The main purpose and return contents are front-loaded, and the parameter semantics are stated compactly and clearly.

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?

For a simple read-only list operation with zero required parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, parameter semantics, and default period. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes further by explaining that start/end narrow the bandwidth usage window rather than filtering nodes, and explicitly stating that omitting both parameters gives all-time usage. This adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'no lower/upper bound' phrasing.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists'), names the resource ('all connected nodes'), and enumerates exactly what is returned: status, Xray version, and bandwidth usage over a period. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like marzban_system_stats or marzban_hosts_get, which target different resources or aggregates.

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 parameter usage guidance ('omit both for all-time') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or mention any exclusions. The use case is implied rather than directly contrasted with alternatives.

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