List exit nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description largely repeats structured data. The one genuinely additive behavioral fact is that suggest returns a single node rather than a list, which is useful but thin; no detail on pagination, latency of suggestions, or failure modes.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action and appends the filter, the alternate mode, the safety note, and the follow-up tool in a logical order. No filler.

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 two-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed, how to filter, the suggestion variant, and the next step. It does not describe the shape of returned node data (name, IP, location), which would be the remaining gap.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description's mention of country filtering and the suggest mode only restates them. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no format or constraint detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List tailnet nodes advertising as exit nodes') and explicitly names the sibling used to act on the result ('Select one with tailscale_set_exit_node'). An agent can distinguish this read/lookup tool from tailscale_set_exit_node without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: use it to enumerate exit nodes, optionally filtered by country, or to get a single suggestion, and directs the agent to tailscale_set_exit_node for selection. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as tailscale_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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