mdpa_get_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the truncation behavior and the limit mechanism, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., read-only nature), error handling, or behavior when both sub_model_part and node_ids are provided, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists key options. Every phrase adds value and there is no extraneous information.

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 the presence of an output schema, return values are covered externally. The description explains input parameters and optional filters, which is adequate for a read tool. It could note the interaction between sub_model_part and node_ids, but this is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to invoke the tool effectively.

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 clearly explains sub_model_part (dotted path examples), node_ids (explicit id list), and limit, but does not elaborate on 'path' (though it's inherently understood from context). This provides meaningful meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: returning node ids and coordinates from a .mdpa file. It further specifies optional filtering by submodelpart or explicit id list and a limit with truncation flag, making it distinct from sibling tools like mdpa_inspect or mdpa_validate.

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 a clear use case (extracting nodes from an mdpa file) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like mdpa_inspect, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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