geometry_nodes-report

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It implies a read-only operation via 'report' but does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or what happens to the object/modifier. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 extremely concise, one sentence with no fluff. However, it is under-specified, so while it is well-structured and front-loaded, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 report tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not describe the return format, behavioral nuances, or how it differs from similar report tools (e.g., other *_report tools). Given the complexity of Geometry Nodes modifiers, this is insufficient.

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 does not explain the parameters 'object' or 'modifier' beyond their titles. The description mentions the modifier and node group, which loosely relates, but it does not clarify which object or how the modifier name is used, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 it reports a Geometry Nodes modifier and its node group, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that create, add, or link nodes, though it does not specify the exact content of the report.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like geometry_nodes-create_modifier or geometry_nodes-add_node. The context of a report tool is implied but no explicit usage context or exclusions are given.

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