List nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool lists nodes and what data is returned, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, required permissions, or any potential rate limits. For a simple list tool, this is minimally adequate but could be more transparent.

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 sentences, no wasted words. First sentence clearly states purpose and output, second adds contextual value ('best starting point'). Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's function and return value (nodes with status, CPU, memory). It also provides usage context. While it could mention that it operates on a cluster, for a no-param list tool it is sufficiently 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 input schema has no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage). According to guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details since there are none, and it correctly describes the output rather than parameters.

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 the verb 'List' and resource 'nodes', specifying the fields returned (online status, CPU load, memory usage). It positions itself as the best starting point, which implies a high-level overview, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'node_status' tool, so it's clear but lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 clear context by stating 'The best starting point to understand the cluster', guiding agents to use it as an initial exploratory step. No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned, but the context is clear enough for basic usage.

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