List nodes

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: the tab-separated output format, the no-output behavior when nothing matches, and the narrowing effect of optional filters. This covers the relevant runtime behavior for a listing tool.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place: filters, output format, no-match behavior, and sibling differentiation are all covered in three dense sentences without repetition.

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 read-only list tool, the description covers the required kind, optional filters, output format, and empty-result behavior. Minor gaps remain, such as no mention of pagination, ordering, or a limit on results, but these are not critical given the tool's apparent scope and the strong annotation coverage.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a helpful explanation of cynefin ('the clear/complicated/complex/chaotic complexity class') and restates the kind enum, but it does not explain what each kind letter means or what values the status filter accepts. It adds some value but does not fully compensate for those semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List nodes filtered by required kind', and defines the exact output as 'one tab-separated line per node: id, status, title'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with 'show dumps one record in full; status summarises the whole project'.

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 indicates list is for node sets with optional filters, and mentions alternatives: 'show dumps one record in full; status summarises the whole project'. It does not spell out explicit when/when-not rules, but the contrast is clear enough for an agent to choose the right tool.

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