Nodepool Providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, establishing this as a safe, read-only operation. The description adds value by detailing the specific data returned (flavors and images), providing behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not contradict annotations and adequately supplements them.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a parameter comment. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a clarifying expansion. No extra or redundant information; every sentence earns its place. Excellent structure.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description is complete. It explains the input parameter and what the output contains. With an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. The description fully covers the necessary contextual information for 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?

The input schema has one parameter (tenant) with no description (0% coverage). The description's 'Args' section explicitly explains the parameter: 'Tenant name (uses default if empty).' This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema, clarifying the default behavior and purpose. For a low-coverage parameter, the description compensates excellently.

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 'List' and the resource 'nodepool cloud providers with flavors and images.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_images and list_nodes by specifying exactly what it returns: provider names, flavors, and images. This makes 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 usage context by stating it shows 'infrastructure available for running jobs,' which suggests using it before job creation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_images or list_nodes) or provide exclusions. Usage guidance is inferred but not explicit.

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