list_nodes_with_fills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'summary of paint types and optional image references' but does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, performance characteristics, pagination, or any side effects. The agent cannot infer safety or constraints beyond the basic purpose.

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 a single clear sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. It is concise but could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, how multiple fills per node are handled, or what 'summary' means. Siblings are listed but no contextual comparison is offered.

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%, meaning all parameters have descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only hinting at the output (summary, optional image refs). Baseline 3 is appropriate as no parameter details are elaborated.

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 lists nodes that have fill paints, with a summary of paint types and optional image references. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('nodes with fill paints'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'find_nodes' (general node search) and 'get_node_details' (single node).

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 the tool should be used when needing nodes with fill paints, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as 'find_nodes' or 'get_colors'. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are stated.

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