bp_list_node_pins

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return payload and hints at the 'registered' prerequisite, but says nothing about error behavior for unregistered nodes, whether it is purely read-only, or how connections are represented beyond 'connection status'.

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?

Purpose and return fields are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is well structured. The trailing 'Args:' block largely restates the single required property and adds little, a minor 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and the registration precondition adequately. The remaining gap is the absence of any behavioral notes given zero annotations.

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 coverage is 0% and the sole parameter node_id is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. 'Registered node ID' adds a meaningful qualifier over the bare schema, but does not explain the ID's format or where to obtain it.

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 pins on a registered Blueprint node') and names the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like bp_node_info, which an agent might reasonably pick instead.

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 word 'registered' implies a precondition (the node must first be registered, likely via bp_register_existing), which is useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as bp_node_info, so the usage is only implied.

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