list_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the mechanism ('pure Rosbridge WebSocket API') but does not disclose side effects (e.g., read-only nature), prerequisites, failure modes, or behavior regarding inactive nodes. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is a simple zero-parameter list operation with an output schema present, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description adequately states what the tool does, though it lacks usage context and behavioral caveats that would make it fully self-contained.

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, so the baseline is 4. The input schema is trivially fully covered, and the description adds no parameter details (as none exist). This is appropriate.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'active ROS nodes', and 'via pure Rosbridge WebSocket API' adds a distinguishing technical detail. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list_topics and list_launches.

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?

No guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While the purpose is obvious, there is no explicit statement of scenarios, exclusions, or preference over sibling list tools.

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