list_mindmap_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. The EXPERIMENTAL warning is useful context about API stability, but the description does not state that this is a read-only operation, how pagination works despite limit/cursor parameters, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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 two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the experimental caveat clearly separated. It wastes no words, though the brevity leaves important behavior undocumented.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the input schema is entirely undocumented at the parameter level, and the description does not cover pagination, permissions, or listing scope. Given three parameters and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 for undocumented parameters. It hints that board_id scopes the listing, but it says nothing about limit, cursor, or how pagination should be driven. The required board_id is only indirectly implied.

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 and resource: 'List mind map nodes on a board.' It is easily distinguished from get_mindmap_node, create_mindmap_node, and delete_mindmap_node by the listing verb. It does not explicitly name those siblings or clarify whether it lists all nodes or only root-level nodes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_mindmap_node for a single node or list_items for board contents. The description implies a board-scoped listing but does not say whether it is exhaustive, whether it covers nested children, or when an agent should choose it over retrieving individual nodes.

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