nodes_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds what annotations cannot—the default compact output shape (inbounds as tags, provider as name, trimmed system info) versus the raw payload under full=true. That return-shape disclosure is genuinely useful given no output schema exists, though it stops short of pagination or volume characteristics.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause carries information—default output shape, the full override, and the sibling route. Nothing is padding.

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 read-only list tool with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description fills the key gap by describing the return shape in both modes and pointing to the single-node alternative. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter's schema text already explains it returns the raw panel response with inbound objects and full system info. The description's gloss on full=true largely restates that, so the baseline 3 applies; the default-vs-raw contrast adds only marginal framing.

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 specific verb and resource ("List all nodes") and immediately scopes it as the collection-level counterpart to nodes_get, which it names. An agent can distinguish it from the single-node sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent on two axes: pass full=true for the raw panel response, and use nodes_get instead when only one node is needed. The condition selecting each alternative is stated, matching the calibration's high-scoring routing pattern.

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