get_geometry_node_tree

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; "Read" correctly signals a non-mutating operation and it discloses the returned structure (interface, nodes, links, unlinked input values). It omits failure behavior (object missing, modifier not a geometry nodes modifier) and whether unlinked values are resolved defaults, which matters for a read tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first clause, then compact Args/Returns blocks with no filler. The awkward possessive "modifier's graph" and a couple of compressed phrases are minor blemishes on an otherwise well-structured definition.

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 two-required-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, and a pointer to the compatible consumer shape. The remaining gap is error/edge-case behavior, which is modest given the low complexity.

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% — the properties carry only titles "Object Name" and "Modifier Name" — so the Args block adds real meaning by clarifying that object_name is the object holding the modifier and modifier_name must be a geometry nodes modifier. It stops short of disambiguating name matching (case sensitivity, object vs. modifier name collisions), so it is adequate rather than thorough.

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?

States a specific verb ("Read") and resource (a geometry nodes modifier's graph) and enumerates what the read covers: group interface, nodes with settings and unlinked input defaults, links. That is far clearer than the sibling get_node_tree (shader trees) or list_geometry_node_inputs, though the description never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 only implied: the note that output is "in the shape build_geometry_nodes takes" hints this is the read half of a read/modify round-trip with that sibling, but the description never says when to prefer this over get_node_tree or list_geometry_node_inputs, nor any preconditions.

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