List node sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation ('List'), explains the classification logic, and additionally discloses that it returns the node's data window and timezone, which is beyond a simple listing. It does not mention error conditions or rate limits, but for a simple retrieval tool this is acceptable.

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, both of which are purposeful. The first sentence front-loads the core function and classification details, the second provides a usage directive. There is no fluff or redundancy, and each sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what it returns (streams classification, data window, timezone), and when to use it. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly invoke this 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?

The schema description coverage is 100% (nodeId is fully described as 'SolarNetwork node ID'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline rule, when schema coverage is high, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('streams reporting on a SolarNetwork node') and details the classification categories (GEN, INV, PYR, WEA). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_latest or query_datum, which focus on data retrieval rather than listing structural information about a 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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Always start here when you do not already know what a node measures.' This tells the agent the exact trigger condition for using this tool and implies that if the node's measurements are already known, other tools may be more suitable. While it doesn't name specific alternatives, the contextual cue is strong and actionable.

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