list_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists nodes with filtering and pagination, and implies read-only behavior via '조회' (inquiry). It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a listing tool, the level of detail is adequate.

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 paragraph with a brief summary followed by a clear bullet-style parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and each sentence adds value. Minor improvement: could be slightly more concise by grouping related parameters, but it is well-structured.

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 7 parameters and an output schema (not shown in detail), the description covers all inputs and the basic function. It does not describe the output structure, but the presence of an output schema mitigates that. Error cases or edge cases (e.g., invalid sort_by values) are not mentioned, but overall it is sufficient for a listing 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 schema alone provides no semantics. The description explicitly explains all 7 parameters, including their defaults and meanings (e.g., keyword for partial matching, category filter, pagination). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool retrieves a list of nodes from the knowledge graph. The verb '조회' (retrieve) and resource '노드 목록' (node list) are specific. Sibling tools are all mutation tools (delete, update, merge, ingest), so the purpose is distinct and easily understood.

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 provides parameter-level guidance (e.g., empty keyword returns all nodes) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No comparison or exclusion criteria are given for sibling tools, though their functions are obviously different.

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