read_comp

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries extra weight and does add it: it discloses the exact return shape (name/type/connections vs. knobs), the performance trade-off of summary, and pagination semantics. It does not mention permissions, truncation defaults beyond limit=0, or ordering of returned nodes.

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?

Front-loaded correctly with purpose then scaling guidance. However, the Args section duplicates the 100%-covered schema descriptions word-for-word, which is pure redundancy rather than earned content.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned, how to control volume, and how to page. Only minor gaps remain (default depth of 999 vs. practical recursion limits, node ordering).

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 baseline is 3. The Args block in the description is essentially a verbatim restatement of each schema description, adding no new semantics such as knob-value formatting, accepted type strings beyond one example, or depth interaction with root.

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 ('Read the node graph (or a subtree)') and enumerates the return payload (type, connections, knob values, error state). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like list_nodes, find_nodes, or read_node_detail, so an agent still has to infer which of the three node-reading tools 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?

Gives concrete usage conditions: use summary=True for comps of 200+ nodes, and use offset/limit to paginate. This is real when-to-use guidance for scaling. What's missing is any statement of when to prefer this tool over the sibling list/find/read_node_detail tools.

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