nodes.list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, what format the list returns (e.g., paginated, filtered), or any side effects. It mentions 'active workflow' which adds some context, but lacks details on error conditions, performance characteristics, or data freshness.

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 states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place by specifying scope ('all nodes', 'active workflow').

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 simple list operation with 0 parameters and no annotations, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It doesn't explain the return format (no output schema exists), potential limitations, or how it differs from sibling tools. The mention of 'active workflow' adds useful context, but overall it's minimalistic for a tool in a complex ecosystem with many sibling operations.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. It adds value by specifying 'all nodes in the active workflow', which clarifies the implicit scope beyond what the empty schema indicates. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 nodes in the active workflow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nodes.get' or 'nodes.search', but the scope ('all nodes') provides some implicit distinction. The description avoids tautology by specifying what is being listed beyond just the tool name.

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 like 'nodes.get', 'nodes.search', or 'nodes.getByType'. It mentions 'active workflow' which gives some context, but doesn't explain prerequisites, limitations, or comparative use cases with sibling tools. There's no explicit 'when' or 'when not' to use this tool.

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