List nodes

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world semantics, and the description adds non-obvious traits: truncated 160-char previews, paging behavior, and board coordinate semantics. It does not mention default sort or pagination limits beyond what the schema implies.

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?

Three tight sentences: scope and filters first, return-shape and alternative second, coordinate convention last. No filler and no restatement of the name.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description discloses the return shape (short summaries with a 160-char preview) and paging, which is what an agent needs to decide to call it. Minor gaps remain around sort default and maximum paging behavior.

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?

With 56% schema coverage, the description compensates by mapping filter concepts to parameters (kind→types, zone→zoneId, task state→task, text query→query, rectangle→bbox, linked to→linkedTo) and clarifying that coordinates are board units with x/y as top-left and y growing downward — meaning the sparse bbox fields lack. sort/offset/limit behavior is left to the 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (nodes), enumerates the filter dimensions, and explicitly names get_nodes as the sibling to use for full text. An agent can distinguish it from search_nodes/get_nodes without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete routing rule: use get_nodes when full text is needed, since this returns 160-character previews. It also implies filter-based retrieval, but does not state when to prefer list_nodes over search_nodes or list_archive.

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