list_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable nuance, especially around `stale_only=true`, explaining that stale confirmations are 'not refuted, but nothing has re-established them since the code moved.' It also defines the view presets. This goes beyond basic query semantics, though it does not cover pagination or side-effect-free guarantees explicitly.

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 concise (about 80 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the view guidance and then the stale_only nuance. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key decision points (view vs manual filter) and the nuanced stale semantics. It does not explain pagination behavior, but that is partially inferable from the limit/offset defaults. The return format is specified as a Markdown table, which is sufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, so the description must compensate. It does so for the two most complex parameters: 'view' (with named presets and meanings) and 'stale_only' (with a detailed explanation). The remaining parameters (limit, offset, order_by, ascending) are straightforward and have enum/default metadata in the schema, so the lack of extra description is acceptable.

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 tool's function: 'Query/filter/sort nodes and return a Markdown table.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the output format is explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that have more specialized purposes (e.g., get_active_claims, get_evidence_history).

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 explicit guidance on using the 'view' parameter instead of hand-assembling status filters, saying 'Use `view` for the questions actually worth asking... rather than assembling a status filter by hand.' This gives clear contextual direction, though it does not directly reference sibling tools as alternatives.

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