List node source packages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the operation is to 'List' the packages, which inherently indicates a read-only action, and provides details about return value (node counts). While it does not explicitly mention side effects or permissions, the listing nature makes this adequate.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'List' and includes concrete examples and output details. No wasted words or 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?

Given there are no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool returns (source packages with node counts) and provides examples, covering everything an agent needs to invoke and interpret the result.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the exact packages included and the node counts, giving context beyond the empty schema.

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 verb 'List' clearly specifies the action, and the resource is precisely defined as 'source npm packages the node database was built from'. Including examples (n8n-nodes-base, @n8n/n8n-nodes-langchain) and the detail 'with node counts' makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_categories or get_node.

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 implies usage context by clearly stating what the tool does, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The agent can infer that this is for listing packages, but no direct comparison with siblings is given.

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