blender_shader_info

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by disclosing exactly what the tool reports: every node, unconnected inputs with values, outputs, and all links. This gives an agent a concrete picture of the tool's behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, both purposeful: the first states the action and output scope, the second gives the usage context. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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, two optional parameters, and existing annotations, the description is largely complete. It states what the output contains even though no output schema is provided. A more explicit note about material naming or an example response would fully close the gap, but nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, and both parameters already have meaningful descriptions ('Material to inspect' and the response_format enum). The tool description does not add parameter-level detail beyond that, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Dump a material's node graph,' followed by a precise list of what is returned (nodes, unconnected inputs with values, outputs, links). This clearly distinguishes the tool from editing and material-building siblings like blender_build_shader or blender_set_shader_input.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use it to find out what a material actually is before editing it.' It gives clear practical context but does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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