list_stateful_nodes_azure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default compact output and verbose option for full configs, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, mention rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. The verb 'List' implies safety, but more transparency would be beneficial.

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 concise with only 4 sentences: a main line, two lines explaining output, and a structured list for arguments. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the key action.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose, parameters, and usage hints (verbose). It could mention if any prerequisites like account ID format but is overall complete for a listing tool.

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%, so the description compensates well. For account_id, it states 'Account ID for an Azure account.' For verbose, it explains 'Return full configurations instead of compact summaries (default: false). Use when analyzing node settings, troubleshooting, or comparing configs.' This adds meaning beyond the schema types and defaults.

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 tool lists all Azure Stateful Nodes in an account, specifying the verb (List), resource (Azure Stateful Nodes), and scope (in an account). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_stateful_nodes' (non-Azure) and 'get_stateful_node_azure' (single node) by explicitly mentioning 'Azure' and 'all 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 provides guidance on when to use verbose=true (analyzing, troubleshooting, comparing configs), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_stateful_nodes' for other clouds or 'get_stateful_node_azure' for a single node. The context implies use for Azure accounts, but exclusion of other tools is missing.

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