Nodepool Nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral details: it shows states, groups by label and state, and explains that summary stats always cover all nodes regardless of limit. No contradictions.

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: a one-line purpose, a usage hint, a behavior note, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is well-organized with clear sections.

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?

Despite 3 parameters and an output schema (which handles return structure), the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter behavior, and edge cases (limit vs summary). It is complete for an agent to effectively use this tool.

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 description carries full parameter burden. It explains each parameter: tenant (default empty), detail (default false, summary vs detail), and limit (default 200, 0 for unlimited, with note on summary stats). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type/default only.

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 explicitly states 'List nodepool nodes — shows what's available, in-use, or being provisioned.' This provides a specific verb and resource, and the tool is clearly distinguished from sibling tools which focus on builds, jobs, etc.

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 advises 'Check this when jobs are stuck waiting for nodes.' This is clear contextual guidance. It also explains default summary mode and the option to get detail, but does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternative tools.

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