list_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists currently running nodes, returns a specific JSON structure, and takes no arguments. It does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or latency, but for a read-only list operation with no parameters, the given information is sufficient and transparent.

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 extremely concise with two complete sentences plus a short example. Every sentence provides value: the first states the purpose, the second details the return format and confirms no arguments, and the third adds a practical use case. Zero waste.

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 has no parameters, a clear output schema, and a simple read-only purpose, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, how to invoke it, what it returns, and when to use it. No gaps are evident.

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?

Since there are zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage, the description adds clarity by explicitly stating 'Takes no arguments.' The baseline is 4 as per guidelines for 0 parameters, and no further parameter documentation is necessary.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'ROS nodes currently running on the robot'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_topics and list_services by specifying the resource type (nodes vs topics/services).

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 explicitly says 'Takes no arguments' which clarifies invocation. It also provides a use case: 'Useful to check whether an expected driver or controller is up.' However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the siblings, though the tool name itself is distinctive enough.

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