polynodes_list_osc_addresses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by stating the return shape and that addresses are grouped by category with parameter ranges.

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 short sentences plus a Returns block. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every line adds useful detail without redundancy.

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 no-parameter discovery tool with a rich output schema and read-only annotations, the description is complete enough. It states what is returned and how it is organized, while the output schema handles detailed response structure.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has no parameter semantics to document. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter information.

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 gives a specific verb, resource, and scope: list all available PolyNodes OSC addresses and their parameter ranges. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling setters and send_raw_osc, which act on specific parameters or send messages rather than enumerate the OSC address space.

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: call this when you need an inventory of OSC addresses and their ranges. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus send_raw_osc or the many parameter-setting siblings, nor does it mention that this is a discovery prerequisite before targeting addresses.

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