list_lab_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a behavioral trait: the vendor label is a best-effort extraction from the template description because EVE-NG's API lacks an explicit field. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief note about the vendor label, and a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the essential information is front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return types. It mentions the key output features (console URL/status for single node, vendor label). For a read-only list tool, this is nearly complete; a minor gap is the lack of distinction between the return format for a single node vs. a list, but it is implicitly clear.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The Args section explains 'lab_path' as 'Full path to the .unl lab file' and 'node_id' as 'Specific node id, or omit to list all nodes.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare titles and types. A minor improvement could include format or validation hints.

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 purpose: 'List all nodes in a lab, or get a single node by id (includes console URL/status).' The verb 'list' or 'get' and resource 'nodes' are specific, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_lab_topology' or 'add_lab_node'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only restates the purpose (list or get a node) without mentioning when not to use it or which sibling tools might be better suited for related tasks.

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