list_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose deterministic ordering and pagination, which are genuinely useful behavioral traits. However, it stops there — it does not mention output shape, error behavior beyond a schema note, rate limits, or how large datasets are handled. Acceptable but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose before the behavioral qualifiers. There is zero waste and the key properties (filter, deterministic sort, pagination) appear early. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specification — but that is a completeness concern, not a structure one.

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?

The tool is simple to invoke since all 5 parameters are optional (a no-argument call succeeds) and an output schema is present, so return format need not be described. However, the description is missing sibling-routing guidance, parameter interplay, and usage context. For a list tool this is adequate but leaves the agent to guess when it is the right choice among ~14 node/graph-related siblings.

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 only 40% (limit and filter documented; order, offset, sort_by left to enum values). Per the rubric, at <50% coverage the description must compensate, but it adds almost nothing: it references the filter generically and mentions pagination without linking it to limit/offset semantics. The description does not help the agent understand sort_by, order, or offset beyond what the bare schema already shows.

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 the verb+resource combination ('노드 목록' / node list) clearly and adds behavioral specifics (filter, deterministic sort, pagination). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_node, get_visible_nodes, or list_edges, but the resource scope is unambiguous and goes beyond a bare tautology of the tool name.

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 only usage hint is 'filter 로 좁히고' (narrow with filter), which conveys implied context for narrowing results. There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings (get_visible_nodes, search, suggest_filter, list_edges), no exclusions, and no mention that all parameters are optional so a bare call works. This is minimal guidance, closer to 'no guidance' than 'clear context'.

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