list_evidence_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'without changing any facts' does usefully disclose that this is a non-mutating read. But it says nothing about pagination semantics, the meaning of cursor/limit beyond the words themselves, or any permission requirements, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the read-only constraint is stated efficiently. It is short to the point of sparseness, but nothing is wasted.

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 five-parameter tool with zero schema documentation and no annotations, one sentence is insufficient. The output schema covers return values, but the description leaves parameter meaning, pagination behavior, and usage context largely unaddressed.

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 0% across five parameters (kind, limit, cursor, graph_path, allow_standalone), and the description explains none of them. 'Page through' faintly gestures at limit/cursor but gives no format, default, or semantics for the required graph_path or the filtering role of kind/allow_standalone.

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 pairs the verb 'Page through' with the specific resource 'source-bound evidence nodes', making the list semantics clear and implicitly distinguishing it from the singular get_evidence_node sibling. However, it never names or contrasts the sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_evidence_node or the other list_* siblings, nor any preconditions or exclusions. The only hint is 'Page through,' which weakly implies bulk retrieval of multiple nodes.

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