shader_get_tree

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by describing a retrieval action. It adds that the returned data covers nodes and links, but it does not disclose behavior for missing materials, output shape, or whether links include connection endpoints.

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 filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding of what the tool does.

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 one-parameter read-only getter, the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain the structure of the returned node tree or what happens when the specified material does not exist.

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 0%, and the description only repeats that the action applies to 'a material' without explaining material_name semantics, naming rules, or failure behavior. The parameter is self-evident by title, but the description adds no real guidance beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the exact resource ('nodes and links of a material'), making it clearly distinct from shader_create_tree, shader_add_node, shader_link_nodes, and other mutation-oriented siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need to inspect a material's node graph. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over related shader tools, nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring the material to already exist.

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