edges.list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('List'), but doesn't specify if it requires permissions, how results are formatted (e.g., list vs. structured data), or if there are limitations (e.g., pagination, performance). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about expected behavior.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information ('List all edges'), making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about the workflow environment, edge representation, or result format. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must infer these details. For a read-only list operation, this is borderline acceptable but leaves gaps in understanding.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, as none exist. It could theoretically mention that no inputs are needed, but this is implied by the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema fully documents the absence of inputs.

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 action ('List') and resource ('all edges in the current workflow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'edges.connect' and 'edges.delete' by focusing on listing rather than modifying edges. However, it doesn't specify what 'edges' represent in this context (e.g., connections between nodes), which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active workflow), compare to similar tools like 'nodes.list' or 'workflow.getStructure', or indicate when listing edges is appropriate (e.g., for inspection vs. modification). This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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