ros2_get_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation, and 'active' indicates it reflects the current runtime graph. The description is transparent about what is included (namespace, pub/sub topics, services) without hidden side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence communicates the action, the resource, and the returned data with zero redundancy. Every word 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is nearly complete. It names the returned fields, and the output schema exists to cover the exact structure. Lacking only explicit guidance on when to choose a sibling tool, which is already accounted for in usage_guidelines.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially fully covered. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the resource scope ('all active ROS2 nodes') and the returned fields, which is more than the empty schema alone provides.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('active ROS2 nodes'), and details the returned content ('namespace, pub/sub topics, and services'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ros2_get_topics and ros2_get_services while remaining immediately understandable.

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 when to use the tool: when an agent needs node-level introspection with associated topics and services. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer sibling tools, such as using ros2_get_topics for topic-only queries or ros2_get_services for service-only queries.

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