ListNodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'list' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination handling (implied by PageSize/PageNumber but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if parameters are omitted. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese ('获取数据开发节点列表') that directly states the action. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with no wasted words, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., what fields are included in the node list), pagination behavior, error conditions, or how filtering parameters interact. For a list tool with multiple optional filters, more context is needed.

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 the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or default behaviors). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or 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 '获取数据开发节点列表' (Get data development node list) clearly states the verb ('get') and resource ('node list'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetNode' (which retrieves a single node) or 'ListNodeDependencies' (which lists node dependencies). It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a ProjectId), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'ListTasks' or 'ListWorkflowInstances'. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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