find_missing_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly declares the tool is 'Read-only' and details the steps: fetches template, lists node classes, subtracts what's installed, and reports missing nodes with pack IDs. This provides full transparency about inputs, process, and outputs without contradiction.

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 concise, with two clear paragraphs: the first states the core purpose, and the second elaborates the process. Every sentence adds value without fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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 that the tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, process, and relation to siblings. It explains dependencies (template, object_info, registry mapping). The only gap is parameter documentation, which is evaluated separately. Overall, it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'same args as get_template', which adds minimal context by referencing another tool but does not explain the meaning or usage of the individual parameters (name, pack, source). This is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter semantics without external knowledge.

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's function: 'Diff a template's nodes against what's installed, and resolve each missing node to the pack that provides it'. It specifies the action (diff and resolve) and resource (template nodes vs installed). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_template (fetches template) and install_node_pack (installs packs).

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 states it uses the same args as get_template, implying it should be used after fetching a template and before installing missing nodes with install_node_pack. It notes the process of subtracting installed nodes, guiding usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond referencing siblings.

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