list_node_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the status is 'live', which provides temporal context. It does not contradict annotations. It could further detail pagination behavior or result ordering, but the combination of annotations and description is fairly transparent.

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 extremely concise: one sentence defining the tool's output, followed by bullet-point parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (unseen) and rich annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key parameters. It does not explicitly state that the result is a list, but 'for each Conferencing Node' implies multiple records. For a read-only listing tool, this is nearly complete.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of 'location' (filter by system_location), 'name_contains' (case-insensitive substring), and groups 'limit, offset, fetch_all' as pagination controls. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it does not specify data formats or allowed 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?

The description clearly states it retrieves 'Live status (load, sync, version, boot time) for each Conferencing Node'. The verb 'list' aligns with returning multiple items, and the resource 'node_status' is specific. The description effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_node_status' (single node) and 'list_conferencing_nodes' (node listing without status).

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 explains filtering by location and name_contains, and pagination controls, which imply usage scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_node_status' or 'list_conferencing_nodes'. The guidance is implicit through parameter descriptions.

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