Survey the mesh

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds that the tool returns specific fields (role, last-heard time), which is useful but does not reveal additional behavioral traits beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, output, and use case. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with key action and result.

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 no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the return content and purpose. Could be improved by mentioning ordering or whether contacts are sorted, but overall sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

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?

No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score is 4. Description compensates by explaining what the output includes (home node, contacts, role, last-heard time), which is the semantic meaning of the tool's result.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists the home node and every known contact with advertised role and last-heard time. The verb 'list' and resource are specific, and the purpose ('roster for spotting quiet or missing nodes') distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific subsets like neighbors.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_node_neighbors' or 'discover_neighbors'. The description implies usefulness for monitoring, but lacks direct comparison or exclusion criteria.

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