Read list items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it reasonably discloses that the tool is read-only in nature, returns all list items, and returns them as a JSON array of strings. It does not describe edge cases like missing selectors or nested lists, but the core behavior and output contract are clear.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the main behavior and return format, then add a brief use-case note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: what is returned and when to use it. No output schema exists, so the return-type statement is valuable; the only minor gap is behavior when the selector matches no list.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with examples. The description adds little beyond reinforcing that the selector points at a list, so baseline 3 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?

Description names a specific operation (returns list items), a resource (items under a selector), and the return shape (JSON array of strings). This distinguishes it from siblings like nodiom_read, which presumably returns file content, and nodiom_query.

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?

States clear use cases (iterating over tasks, team members, bullet lists) that signal when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use-case framing is enough to guide basic selection.

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