list_gn_modifiers

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself, but there is no contradiction. It would benefit from clarifying what 'GN' means or the scope of modifiers listed.

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 unnecessary words. It conveys the core action and target efficiently, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it fails to clarify the 'GN' acronym or differentiate from the sibling list_modifiers, leaving a contextual gap for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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% and the description does not elaborate on the object_name parameter. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the missing schema description, leaving potential ambiguity about the expected value format or scope.

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 specific resource (GN modifiers on an object). It distinguishes from the generic sibling tool list_modifiers by specifying 'GN' (Geometry Nodes) subset, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the generic list_modifiers or any other alternative. The description lacks context about selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusionary conditions.

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