squads_accessible_nodes

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Get', giving no detail about read-only guarantees, required permissions, failure behavior, or how 'accessible' is computed.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the key scoping information ('specific squad') is front and center. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup the definition is minimally sufficient, but there is no output schema and no explanation of what 'accessible' returns. The close sibling users_accessible_nodes also makes some guidance necessary.

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 already documents the single uuid parameter at 100% coverage ('Squad UUID'), so the description does not need to add much. It adds no new parameter meaning, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states an explicit action ('Get') and resource ('nodes accessible to a specific squad'), making it unambiguous. The qualifier 'specific squad' also distinguishes it from the closely related users_accessible_nodes sibling.

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 choose this tool over users_accessible_nodes, nodes_list, or squads_list, all of which are siblings. The intended selection context is only implied by the verb and object.

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