sd_list_node_properties

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context by specifying it lists 'runtime' properties and 'connection state,' which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behavioral details, so it is modestly useful.

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, front-loaded sentence that is precise and free of filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 and annotations that cover safety, the description is minimally sufficient for a simple read-only listing tool. However, it lacks usage context and differentiation from siblings, and the parameter semantics are not addressed. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description does not mention the 'node' parameter at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. The schema itself provides a detailed NodeRef structure, but the description adds no guidance on how to identify the target node or what 'node' refers to in this context. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which is a gap.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('runtime input and output properties, types, values, and connection state'). It is distinct from generic node retrieval tools, though it does not explicitly call out sibling tools. The qualifiers make the scope clear, but the lack of differentiation from sd_get_node prevents a 5.

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 like sd_get_node or sd_list_graph_nodes. It states what it does but not the intended scenarios or any exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage context, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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