list_nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operations with potentially large result sets. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the return format (node ID, name, FQDN, resources, maintenance status), mentions pagination support, and states authentication requirements ('Requires Application API key').

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states purpose and return data, second provides usage guidance, third covers pagination and auth requirements. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted 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?

For a read-only tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context: purpose, return format, usage guidance, pagination, and auth requirements. The only minor gap is not explicitly mentioning default values or error cases, but overall it's highly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (page, per_page) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('List all infrastructure nodes'), resource ('in the panel'), and scope ('admin action'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_node (which fetches a single node) and list_servers (which lists servers, not nodes). It provides a comprehensive overview of what the tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use to check available capacity before creating servers'), providing clear context for its application. It also distinguishes it from create_server by indicating it's a prerequisite for capacity assessment.

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