list_nodes

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

Without any annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden and excels: it discloses idempotence, read-only safety, single-node edge case behavior, and partial failure handling with warnings rather than exceptions. This goes beyond what annotations typically provide.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds valuable edge-case and error-handling details without any fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential contextual aspects: what it returns, read-only behavior, single-node handling, and partial failures. The only minor gap is the unmentioned profile parameter, but it is optional and does not undermine overall completeness.

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 never mentions the 'profile' parameter, and schema coverage is 0%, so no meaning is added beyond the parameter's existence in the schema. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema 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 first sentence clearly states the tool lists all cluster nodes with specific attributes (capacity, uptime, PVE version), using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from siblings like get_node_capacity.

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 as a general node listing but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools. The single-node and partial-result notes give context but not direct selection criteria.

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