list_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read-like operation (List) and explains node tracking criteria. However, it does not mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether results are cached, which are important for safe invocation.

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: two sentences and one argument doc. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides parameter details. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional param, output schema exists), the description adequately covers what the tool does and the parameter behavior. It could mention output structure or pagination, but the existence of an output schema reduces the need. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning to the only parameter, active_only, explaining its effect (showing nodes seen in last 5 minutes when True). This compensates for the schema deficiency and provides useful context beyond the default value.

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 lists UECS nodes on the network, specifying tracking by source IP and CCM data types. This distinguishes it from siblings (e.g., get_actuator_status, get_sensor_data) which retrieve specific data, not node lists.

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 use when needing a list of nodes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The active_only argument is explained, but no guidance on when to set it vs not.

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