editor_list_node_signals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing but doesn't disclose potential failure modes, whether the node must exist, or what the response format contains. The word 'list' hints at a safe operation, but this is not explicitly confirmed and no additional behavioral context is given.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core action and target, earning its place despite missing 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the result structure and usage context. It only states 'signals and their connections' without specifying what the output looks like, whether it requires a currently open scene, or how node addressing works. This is under-specified even for a simple read tool.

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 sole parameter 'node' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description merely says 'on a node' without explaining the expected format (e.g., node path, name, or ID). This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb (List) and resource (signals and their connections on a node). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_all_signals' by scoping the listing to a particular 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus similar tools like list_all_signals or editor_get_info. There is no mention of prerequisites such as an open scene or valid node path, nor any exclusion criteria.

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