List org control-plane nodes

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds only the scoping phrase 'registered to the org control plane,' but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering defaults, or return format.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and object. It contains no filler or redundant information, exactly the appropriate size for this simple 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It states the core purpose but lacks parameter semantics and return value structure, which are not covered elsewhere. Given the presence of multiple node-list sibling tools, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for org_id, and the description does not explain what org_id does or how it affects listing. The parameter name offers some clue, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema details, leaving ambiguity about optionality or filtering behavior.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'nodes registered to the org control plane,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like operator_nodes_list and nodes_directory. It clearly states what the tool does.

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 such as operator_nodes_list or nodes_directory. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or preferred contexts, leaving the agent with only the tool name and sibling names as hints.

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