list_nodes

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

With no annotations available, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey some behavior through parameter details like depth descending levels and include_path adding breadcrumb paths, but it omits broader behavioral traits such as output order, recursion limits, or side-effect safety. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description never explicitly states that or covers edge cases.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose and a compact Args list. Every line adds necessary information, and there is no redundant filler. It loses a point because it omits a brief usage-context sentence that could further help an agent without bloating the text.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's responsibility. Parameters are described adequately for a simple listing tool. However, the description lacks guidance on when to use list_nodes versus search_nodes and does not clarify traversal edge cases or relationship to the CherryTree hierarchy beyond parent_id and depth.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the Args section is the only source of parameter meaning. It usefully explains parent_id (0 = top-level), depth (levels to descend), and include_path (breadcrumb paths). This strongly compensates for the schema gap, though the exact format of breadcrumb paths and depth semantics could be clearer.

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 states the core action clearly: 'List nodes in the CherryTree tree.' It identifies both the verb and the resource, which is sufficient for basic purpose clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like search_nodes or read_node, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description does not mention search_nodes, read_node, or any situation where list_nodes is preferred. The usage context is only implied by the word 'List,' which is weak guidance.

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