rsap_list_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic list operation, without explicitly noting that it is read-only, whether it requires an active connection/project, or any potential side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a read operation, similar to the 'update_drive' example.

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 extremely concise, using just two sentences (or a sentence plus an Args list) to convey purpose and parameter meaning. Every word earns its place with no repetition or fluff.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. However, it does not describe the return structure beyond mentioning coordinates, nor any prerequisites like needing an open project or connection. Given the simplicity, this is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema provides only the type and default for 'limit', with 0% description coverage. The description's Args section adds the meaning 'Maximum number of nodes to return', compensating for the schema gap. This provides useful semantic information beyond the structured type.

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 clearly states 'List nodes with their coordinates', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rsap_list_sections and rsap_list_bars by explicitly targeting nodes with coordinate details.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the name and description imply it is for listing nodes. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so the usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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