convoy_list_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it names the return fields (host/node/runtime identity, connection state, address, version), and discloses the non-obvious rule that local nodes expose capabilities (td_python, full_shell) while remote nodes deliberately omit the field, where absence means unknown rather than permitted. It doesn't mention permissions or behavior when the host is unreachable, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three dense sentences with the scope statement front-loaded and no filler. The final sentence about the capabilities asymmetry is verbose but earns its place by preventing a dangerous misreading of an absent field.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the returned metadata and the local/remote capabilities distinction—enough for an agent to consume the result correctly. It omits pagination, failure modes, and permissions, which are minor for a listing tool.

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% and the single convoy_id parameter is already documented in the schema as an optional namespace filter. The description adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the local and reachable remote Embody nodes known to this machine's Convoy host'), which is more precise than the bare name. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like convoy_list_controllers or get_convoy_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It bounds the result set (local plus reachable remote nodes) but never states when an agent should call this versus convoy_list_controllers, convoy_ping, or get_convoy_status. There are no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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