list_signals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the output structure ('target node + method'), going beyond what annotations provide. It does not mention any side effects, which is consistent with the read-only hint.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and output details without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what is listed (signals) and the output structure (connections with target node and method). Minor ambiguity remains about whether all signals are returned or only ones with connections, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the parameter 'target'. It implies that 'target' refers to the node whose signals are listed, but it does not specify the expected format (e.g., node path, name) or provide explicit parameter guidance. This partial compensation is not fully sufficient for a parameter with no schema documentation.

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 ('List') and resource ('a node's signals and their current connections'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like connect_signal, disconnect_signal, and call_method. It precisely states what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 implies usage context ('List a node's signals') without explicitly stating alternatives or exclusions. The purpose is clear enough to know when to use it, but no direct comparison to sibling inspection tools is provided, so it doesn't fully meet the 'alternatives' criterion.

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