list_children

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that recursive can return many nodes and advises sparing use, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., list of paths or names), nor whether it is strictly read-only, though that is implied by 'List'.

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?

Very concise, with purpose stated first, then a key warning, and parameter descriptions in a clear list. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 simple list operation, it covers all parameters and provides critical usage guidance. It could improve by stating the return type (e.g., 'returns a list of child node paths'), but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature keep this from being a significant gap.

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 provides no descriptions (coverage 0%), but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: parent_path, recursive with a usage warning, and filter_type with example values. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific action ('List children of a network node') with a clear resource and scope. It differentiates from find_nodes by implying a direct child listing rather than pattern-based search.

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?

Explicitly warns against recursive=True on large networks and recommends find_nodes with a pattern instead, giving clear when-not-to-use guidance. Also explains the filter_type parameter with examples.

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