list_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. '(bulk read)' implies a read-only, batch operation, but there is no mention of permissions, pagination, result limits, or whether the project scope is required — significant gaps for a bulk enumeration tool.

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?

Two terse sentences with the resource and mode front-loaded and no filler. Well-sized for the amount of information conveyed, though it is brief at the cost of completeness.

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 bulk-read tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It omits pagination/limit behavior, whether projectId is required, and any return-shape hint, leaving the agent under-equipped to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0% with three undocumented params, so the description must compensate. It helpfully enumerates the type values (goal|need|approach|job|task) that the schema leaves as a bare string, and names the iteration filter, but projectId is only implied by 'in a project' and no formats are given.

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 and resource ('List nodes in a project') and adds a mode qualifier ('bulk read'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_tree or search, which also enumerate content.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The '(bulk read)' hint implies a contrast with single-item reads, but the agent is left to infer when this beats get_tree or search.

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