emu_list_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned but does not explicitly confirm a read-only operation, mention default pagination behavior, side effects, or error conditions. The inclusion of 'RISDB return codes' adds some specificity, but overall the description is thin on behavioral 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes to the tool's purpose and output content, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a good job naming the key fields (IP addresses, active versions, RISDB return codes). However, it omits details like default result size, ordering, or the structure of the response. For a simple list tool this is largely sufficient, but it could be more explicit about pagination defaults.

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 does not add any meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it does not explain how role, limit, and offset interact or what defaults apply. The description provides no supplementary value for the parameters.

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 ('Lists') and a clear resource ('CUCM cluster nodes'), and enumerates the returned data (IP addresses, active versions, RISDB return codes). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like emu_list_phones or emu_list_inventory by focusing on cluster 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 purpose is clear, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as emu_get_topology or emu_list_inventory. The description provides no exclusion criteria or situational triggers, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the resource name alone.

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