Список нод группы

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

The description states it 'Возвращает список нод' (returns a list of nodes), which is a read-only operation. However, the annotations declare readOnlyHint: false, indicating the tool may modify state. This is a direct contradiction, causing confusion about the tool's side effects. The description does not add clarity beyond the annotations or resolve the inconsistency.

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: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then a brief note on pagination. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and pagination, but for a list tool with no output schema, it does not specify the response structure or fields of the node objects. The annotation contradiction also undermines completeness. There is no mention of error conditions or authentication, but for a simple list, the description is adequate yet incomplete given the conflicting annotations.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, including the meaning of limit and offset. The description mentions 'Поддерживает пагинацию через limit/offset' (supports pagination via limit/offset), which reinforces this but adds little new meaning beyond what the schema already states. The description does not clarify the relationship between cluster_id and group_id beyond the 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?

The description clearly states it returns a list of nodes belonging to a specific cluster group, using the specific verb 'Возвращает' (returns) and resource 'список нод' (list of nodes). It differentiates from sibling tools like list_k8s_cluster_nodes (cluster-wide nodes) and list_k8s_node_groups (lists groups), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool: to list nodes of a specific group, as indicated by 'конкретной группе кластера'. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as using list_k8s_cluster_nodes for cluster-wide node lists. The usage context is clear but no exclusions are given.

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