List Node Kinds

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

Although no annotations are present, the description explicitly says 'read from the LIVE registry', indicating a read-only operation. It also discloses that each entry indicates whether the host 'ADMITS' it and that refusals name missing capabilities, providing insight into output behavior.

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 brief (two sentences) and structured with a clear source statement and an output behavior statement. Some redundancy exists in the first sentence, but it remains concise and organized.

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 listing tool with one optional filter, the description provides the essential context: what is listed, the source of data, and the nature of the output. It does not specify sorting or pagination, but these are not critical for a basic list operation.

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 only parameter, 'category', is well-described in the schema with examples. The tool description adds no extra meaning, but the schema alone sufficiently explains the filter, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 node kinds registered on the host, with explicit context about the live registry and inclusion of locally added and marketplace-vendored kinds. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 hints at a distinction from a 'fixed list' but does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide clear when-to-use guidance. It implies freshness but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools like describe_node_kind.

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