QuantConnect

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by using 'Read'. The description adds minimal context about reading 'available and selected nodes', but doesn't elaborate on what these nodes represent, any rate limits, or authentication needs. With annotations covering safety, it meets a basic standard without rich behavioral details.

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, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It's front-loaded with the verb 'Read', making it easy to parse, though it could be slightly more specific without losing brevity.

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?

Given the tool has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a tool with 1 parameter and no schema description coverage, it lacks details on what 'nodes' are or how they're structured, leaving gaps in contextual understanding despite the structured support.

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 0%, but the description doesn't add any parameter details beyond implying a project context. The single parameter 'projectId' is documented in the schema with examples, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting, though the description could have clarified what 'nodes' are to enhance understanding.

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 action ('Read') and the target ('available and selected nodes of a project'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_project' or 'update_project_nodes', which would require more specificity about what 'nodes' refer to in this context.

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. With sibling tools like 'read_project' and 'update_project_nodes', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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