get_nodes_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that output is a compact layout-aware summary and that defaults mirror get_node_info, which is useful, but says nothing about read-only nature, error behavior for unknown ids, or what the compact summary actually contains.

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?

Three short sentences with zero padding: purpose first, defaults reference second, routing preference last. Every sentence 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?

For a read tool with no output schema and 80% parameter coverage, the description supplies the essentials: batch scope, inherited defaults, and the alternative to use instead. Only the shape of the compact summary and failure behavior are left unstated.

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 80%, so the schema already documents fields, verbose, maxDepth and excludeTypes well. The description adds only the inherited-defaults note and no per-parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource and scope ('compact layout-aware summaries for several nodes') and explicitly names the sibling it replaces ('looping get_node_info'). An agent can tell this is the batch read variant without opening the schema, though the description never uses an explicit retrieval verb.

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?

'Prefer this over looping get_node_info' gives an explicit routing rule against the closest alternative, and 'Same defaults as get_node_info' tells the agent behavior is inherited. It stops short of saying when a single get_node_info call is still preferable.

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