list_nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no need to state that. The description adds some behavioral context by noting that node readiness, roles, version, and pressure conditions are returned, which goes beyond a generic 'list nodes'. However, it doesn't clarify how the cluster parameter scope or whether any filtering applies.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the useful detail of what is listed.

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 simple tool definition is adequate: annotations cover safety, an output schema exists, and the description conveys the core purpose. But the lack of usage guidance and parameter elaboration leaves meaningful gaps for an agent trying to decide when and how to use 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 schema has one required parameter, 'cluster', with 0% description coverage. The tool description doesn't mention 'cluster' at all, leaving its meaning and accepted values ambiguous. There is no compension for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('nodes'), and explicitly names the information included (readiness, roles, version, pressure conditions). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings that target other resources like clusters, pods, deployments, and configmaps.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must infer when to choose this over list_clusters or get_cluster_health.

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