list_node_definitions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: availability depends on which reference platform images have been imported. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the examples add useful domain context. However, it could go further by explicitly stating side effects (e.g., no changes to state) or any pagination/limits, but these are less critical for a list operation.

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 sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the purpose and gives examples; the second provides actionable usage guidance and a necessary caveat. There is no word waste or redundancy.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It covers what the tool does, how to use the results, and what external factors influence the output. Sibling tools are all about node management, and this description clearly positions list_node_definitions as a prerequisite for add_node.

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?

This tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the schema. The description adds value by explaining how to use the returned 'id' in subsequent calls, which indirectly clarifies the semantics of the (zero) input parameters. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional parameter documentation is needed.

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's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('platform/node types'), and includes concrete examples (e.g., iosv, iosvl2) that distinguish it from sibling tools that manage actual nodes rather than definitions. It leaves no ambiguity about what is being listed.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool and how to consume its output: 'Use the returned id as node_definition when adding nodes.' It also provides a crucial prerequisite context (availability depends on imported images) that helps the agent decide whether to call this tool.

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