List Drop-capable nodes

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

The read-only nature is already declared in annotations (readOnlyHint: true). The description's only added details are the GET endpoint and scope/org_id constraint, but the latter is already present in the input schema. No new behavioral context (e.g., response format, pagination, or rate limits) is provided, so it adds little beyond the structured metadata.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key constraints. No redundant wording; every part earns its place. It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.

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 simple and has good schema/annotation coverage, but the description does not mention what the returned nodes look like or how to interpret them. Since there is no output schema, the description should carry more weight in explaining the response. The details about scope/org_id are redundant with the schema, so the overall context is only minimally complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the scope=public/private and org_id requirement, which is already in the schema. It does not add any additional meaning such as parameter formats, usage patterns, or how the parameters affect results.

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 lists nodes available for Drop uploads, with a specific verb (list), resource (nodes), and domain (Drop uploads). It distinguishes from siblings like drop_files_list and drop_upload_reserve by focusing on the node selection step.

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 establishes clear context: it is for listing nodes to use in Drop uploads. It mentions the scope parameter and the org_id requirement for private scope, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it does not fully differentiate from sibling tools beyond purpose.

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