List Organize Nodes

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond these: it is flagged 'Experimental', and it specifies the data source ('from the folders workspace DB'), which helps set expectations about scope and reliability. No contradictions with 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the essential action and scope. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines what the tool does and its experimental nature, the second gives direct usage guidance. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a read-only list operation with one optional parameter, annotations covering safety, and an output schema describing return values, the description is complete. It specifies the resource, the context (sidebar organize nodes), and the recommended use case, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 single parameter (workspaceId) has a complete schema description that explains when to omit it (when AFFINE_WORKSPACE_ID is configured). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific details, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('AFFiNE sidebar organize folder and link nodes'), sourced from 'the folders workspace DB'. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like list_workspace_tree or list_docs by targeting a specific node type, and the 'Experimental' label adds context.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this before moving or deleting organize nodes.' This provides clear context and ties to related sibling operations (move_organize_node, delete_organize_link). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is direct and sufficient for the tool's simple read-only purpose.

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