list_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: the inclusion of the built-in controller, which might not be expected. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or address potential side effects, though 'Return' implies a safe query. More detail about output ordering or filtering would improve transparency.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It includes a parenthetical clarification about the built-in controller without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns and the scope (all known nodes including controller). No further detail is needed, as the output schema covers return structure, and there are no inputs to document.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter information to cover. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed, which fits the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 'Return' and a clear resource 'all known Jenkins nodes/agents', and explicitly notes the inclusion of the built-in controller. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs or list_builds, which handle different resource types.

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 implies usage by stating what it returns, and the tool name 'list_nodes' makes the purpose self-evident. No alternative node-listing tool exists among siblings, so explicit exclusions are unnecessary. The context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool when node information is needed.

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