sylve_node_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail of which metrics are returned, but says nothing about pagination, output format, or auth/context requirements beyond what the schema implies.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource and returned fields front-loaded. Every clause earns its place by telling the agent what it gets back.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, naming the returned metrics is the right compensating detail. An agent can call it correctly; only explicit sibling differentiation and pagination behavior are missing.

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 both parameters (node, context) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, so baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries this burden.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('cluster nodes') and enumerates the metrics returned (CPU%, RAM%, disk, guest counts, version). This clearly separates it from mutation siblings like sylve_node_drain, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sylve_node_show for single-node detail.

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 by 'List all cluster nodes' as a read/overview operation, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as sylve_node_show for per-node detail or sylve_cluster_status. The agent must infer the distinction.

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