workiva_list_chain_run_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 only says 'List nodes' without revealing any behavioral aspects such as pagination, result structure, dependencies, or whether it returns all nodes or a subset. For a read-only list operation, some disclosure of output or limitations would be expected, but none is given.

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 compact and front-loaded: a single imperative sentence followed by a brief two-item Args list. No extraneous information is present, and every sentence earns its place. The structure is clean and instantly scannable.

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 that this is a simple list tool with only two parameters and an output schema exists (so return values are covered elsewhere), the description is largely sufficient. It covers the core purpose and parameters. The only gaps are lack of usage guidance and behavioral traits (pagination, ordering), but these are less critical for a straightforward list operation, so a slightly above-baseline score is appropriate.

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 input schema lists only parameter names and titles ('Run Id', 'Chain Id') with no descriptions. The tool description compensates by explicitly defining each argument: 'chain_id: The chain UUID' and 'run_id: The chain run ID'. This adds meaningful semantic value, clarifying that chain_id is a UUID and run_id is a run identifier, so the description makes good use of the Args section.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'List nodes within a chain run.' It specifies the resource (chain run nodes) and the verb (list), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling list tools such as workiva_list_chain_runs or workiva_get_chain, so it loses a point for lack of sibling differentiation.

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: the tool lists nodes for a given chain run, requiring chain_id and run_id. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., that the chain must already exist). This is acceptable but minimal, placing it at implied usage rather than clear context.

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