openwisp_list_nodes

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 adds only the HTTP GET method, which implies a read operation, but does not disclose auth requirements, pagination behavior, rate limits, or return characteristics. For a list endpoint with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 efficient sentence with the resource and category front-loaded, followed by the endpoint. The bracketed category and endpoint metadata are slightly extraneous but do not hinder readability.

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 simple one-parameter list tool, the description identifies the resource and endpoint. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits return structure, pagination, and any usage constraints, leaving notable gaps for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 100%, and the single optional 'topology' parameter is fully documented in the schema as filtering nodes by topology ID. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'List nodes (routers/switches/endpoints) participating in a network topology,' which clearly identifies what the tool returns. It adds useful scope with node types and the HTTP endpoint. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as openwisp_list_topologies or openwisp_list_links, 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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this tool lists topology nodes, and the optional schema parameter covers filtering by topology ID. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives named, leaving the agent to infer selection context.

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