list_nodes

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 specific output fields (uptime, CPU, memory usage) beyond the annotations, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or limits. Given the annotations cover the main behavioral concerns, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the specific fields. There is no waste or repetition; every word contributes to clarity.

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 list tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is sufficient to understand its purpose. It does not explicitly say 'all nodes' but that is implied. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, so the description does not need to elaborate on them. The description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100%) and there is nothing to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information, which is correct.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('nodes'), and explicitly names the returned metrics (uptime, CPU, memory usage). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_resources or list_storage, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_node_status or list_resources. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool over others. The usage is implied but not stated.

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