cat_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return values (node name, IP, role, load, memory usage) but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately brief with three lines: a purpose statement, parameter explanation, and return value summary. It's front-loaded with the main function and avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the structure could be slightly cleaner (e.g., bullet points for returns).

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 tool's moderate complexity (node information retrieval), no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description provides basic purpose and parameter info but lacks sufficient behavioral context. It mentions return values but doesn't fully compensate for missing structured data, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's operation and limitations.

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 description explicitly documents the single parameter 'full_id' with its purpose ('是否显示完整节点 ID' - whether to display full node ID), adding meaningful context beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. Since there's only one parameter and the description covers it adequately, this compensates well for the schema's lack of 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 states '获取节点信息' (get node information), which provides a basic verb+resource but is vague about scope and differentiation. It doesn't specify what type of nodes (e.g., Elasticsearch cluster nodes) or how this differs from sibling tools like 'nodes_info' or 'nodes_stats', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'nodes_info' or 'nodes_stats' in the sibling list. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone without contextual hints.

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