Nodepool Labels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, result limits, or side effects. It merely restates the listing operation, so transparency is not enhanced beyond annotations.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the purpose first and then documenting the sole parameter. No wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 tool is a simple read-only listing operation with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the combination of annotations, output schema, and this description largely covers the necessary context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling list tools, which is a minor 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?

The schema has one parameter 'tenant' with only a title and empty default, giving 0% description coverage. The description compensates by stating 'tenant: Tenant (default from env),' which clarifies that the default is read from the environment rather than being a literal empty string. This adds meaningful information 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 'List available nodepool labels' and clarifies they are 'node types that jobs can request.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_nodes and list_projects.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'node types that jobs can request' implies the use case of checking available node types for jobs, but no alternatives are named or exclusions given. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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