ap_node_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly signals a read-only operation via 'Read', defines the scope as the active material, and describes the full returned contents. It does not mention edge cases such as missing active material or failure behavior, but for a no-parameter read tool the disclosure is solid.

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 two sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the precise behavior and output contents; the second adds relevant context about reliability and leverage without unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete: it enumerates exactly what data will be returned and makes the read-only, scoped nature clear. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately clarifies that the scope is the active material, which is the only implicit input an agent needs to understand. Baseline 4 is appropriate because no parameter docs are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('the active material's node graph'), then enumerates the exact data returned: node ids, names, types, positions, socket names, and links. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling mutation tools like ap_node_add, ap_node_connect, and ap_node_remove.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is useful: when an agent needs the node graph structure to work with nodes, and it emphasizes that node work is where the agent has leverage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a read-only inspection tool the intended usage is strongly implied.

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