Nodepool Nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior: the default summary output vs detail=true for individual nodes, and the limit parameter with 0 for unlimited. This goes beyond safety to explain output behavior, which is valuable.

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 three short sections: purpose, use case, and args. It front-loads the primary purpose and uses a clean list format for parameters. No wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present, return value details are covered. The description covers all parameters, default behavior, and the diagnostic use case. It's complete for a read-only list tool with no nested structures.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: tenant (default from env), detail (include individual node list), and limit (max nodes, 0 unlimited). This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 opens with 'List nodepool nodes — available, in-use, or provisioning,' which clearly states the action and resource, and enumerates the node states. This distinguishes it from other list tools like list_jobs and list_projects by focusing specifically on nodepool nodes.

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?

It provides an explicit use case: 'Check when jobs are stuck waiting for nodes.' It also gives guidance on parameter selection ('Summary by default, set detail=true for individual nodes'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, so it's not a 5.

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