List operator runtime nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by revealing that the result includes private nodes and is scoped to the caller's orgs, which clarifies the exact result set beyond the structured fields.

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, direct sentence conveys scope and inclusion without wasted words. The information is front-loaded 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?

For a parameterless, read-only listing tool, the description adequately defines the resource and its scoping. It does not describe the return structure, but no output schema exists and the annotations cover the read-only safety profile, so the description is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline for parameterless tools is 4, and the description correctly makes no parameter claims.

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 returns 'Runtime VPN nodes for orgs the caller belongs to (includes private)', explicitly scoping to caller membership and private inclusion. This distinguishes it from per-org siblings like org_nodes_list, giving a specific verb+resource+scope.

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?

Usage context is implied by the phrase 'for orgs the caller belongs to', suggesting use for a multi-org or operator-level listing. However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives or when-not-to-use, such as 'use org_nodes_list for a specific org'.

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