read_project_nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying what gets read ('available and selected nodes'), but doesn't elaborate on format, pagination, or other behavioral traits. With annotations covering the safety profile, this earns a baseline 3 for adding some value.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple read operation and front-loads the essential information.

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 read operation with readOnlyHint annotation and an output schema, the description provides adequate context. It specifies what data is retrieved ('available and selected nodes'), which complements the structured fields. The main gap is lack of usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but overall completeness is reasonable given the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the single parameter 'projectId' has no description in the schema. The tool description doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. However, with only one parameter and an output schema present, the baseline remains at 3 since the description doesn't add parameter meaning but the overall context is manageable.

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 ('read') and resource ('available and selected nodes of a project'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'read_project' or 'update_project_nodes', which would require more specific differentiation for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several sibling 'read_' tools (e.g., 'read_project', 'read_project_collaborators') with no indication of when this specific node-reading tool is appropriate versus other project-related read operations.

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