List Xpresso Graph Nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the operation walks a tag, returns a flat list, provides stable dotted-index path ids, includes port summaries, and handles two input kinds with a defined fallback for object handles. It stops short of describing error cases or output ordering, but for a read-only listing tool the behavior is well specified.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second defines the output's key field and stable path semantics, and the third covers both input variants and downstream usage. The most critical scoping information is front-loaded, and there is zero filler or repetition of schema details.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains what is returned (flat list, dotted-index id, port summaries) and how to use the output. It also handles the input flexibility. The main gaps are lack of detail on what exactly 'port summaries' includes and no mention of edge cases (e.g., missing tag or object without a Texpresso tag), but the essential calling contract is complete.

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?

Although the schema documents the 'handle' parameter at 100% coverage, the description adds critical meaning: it clarifies that both tag handles and object handles are accepted, defines exactly what an object handle does (uses that object's first Texpresso tag), and explains the id format plus downstream consumption via `{kind:'gv_node', tag, id}`. This transforms a generic union type into an actionable parameter contract.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Walk an Xpresso ... tag and return a flat list of its GvNodes.' It names the domain (Xpresso), the aliases (Texpresso / GvNodeMaster), and the exact output (GvNodes), which clearly separates it from generic graph tools like list_graph_nodes.

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 clearly says the tool accepts either a tag handle or an object handle and explains the object-handle behavior ('uses that object's first Texpresso tag'). It also tells the agent how to use the returned ids from downstream Xpresso tools. However, it does not explicitly name when not to use this tool versus a sibling like list_graph_nodes, leaving some inference to the agent.

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