list_nodes

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, lowering the disclosure bar. The description adds the Group-scoping behavior, but says nothing about the return shape (flat list vs tree, ordering) or pagination. Useful context beyond annotations, but not rich.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, and the rest is short. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema, costing a little space, but nothing is padded or buried.

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 single-optional-param read tool with readOnlyHint annotations, this covers what is needed to call it correctly. The main omission is return format, which matters mildly for a listing tool with no output schema.

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 100%, so the single root parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description's Args block restates the schema text verbatim, adding no format, default, or lookup semantics beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all nodes in the script') and adds the conditional variant for Group children. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling find_nodes, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which listing tool to pick.

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?

Usage is implied: pass a Group name via root to list children, omit it to list everything. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. find_nodes for filtered lookup), so the agent must infer the choice.

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