list_db_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that 'compartment_id is always required by the SDK', which adds useful behavioral context about mandatory parameters. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), potential rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output looks like (no output schema exists).

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 with two sentences that directly address purpose and a key behavioral note. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and the second sentence adds necessary context without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at parameter usage, but lacks details on behavior, output format, error conditions, or sibling differentiation. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'compartment_id is always required' and mentions optional filtering by 'DB System', which maps to the two parameters (compartment_id and db_system_id). However, it doesn't provide details on parameter formats, valid values, or examples, leaving gaps in semantic understanding.

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 action ('List') and resource ('DB Nodes in a compartment'), with optional filtering by DB System. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_db_node' (singular) and 'list_db_systems', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_databases' or 'list_instances' beyond the resource name.

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 mentioning 'optionally filtered by DB System' and notes that 'compartment_id is always required by the SDK', which provides some guidance on parameter requirements. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_db_node' for single nodes or 'list_db_systems' for systems, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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