list_geometry_node_inputs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating 'list', but does not explicitly disclose non-destructive behavior, required permissions, or effects. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise with a clear structure including Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and adds necessary detail without excess.

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, the description covers the action, parameters, and return format. An output schema exists, and the description supplements it by listing the return fields. Could mention that it only works for geometry nodes modifiers, but the title implies that.

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%, but the description adds meaningful explanations for both parameters: 'Name of the object with the modifier' and 'Name of the geometry nodes modifier', which clarifies their roles beyond the schema titles.

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 'List all available inputs on a geometry nodes modifier', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_geometry_node_input (which modifies inputs) and get_node_tree (which retrieves the node tree).

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 tells what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., before calling set_geometry_node_input). No usage context or exclusions are mentioned.

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