geometry_nodes.report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only, what side effects occur, or any authentication requirements. The minimal description leaves the agent guessing about mutable behavior.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it is too brief to be considered well-structured. It could benefit from front-loading key information while maintaining 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?

Given the complexity of Geometry Nodes and the lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the report contains (e.g., node tree structure, properties) or how it relates to sibling report tools. More context is needed for effective tool selection.

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 at all. It fails to clarify that 'object' is the required owner of the modifier or that 'modifier' defaults to the first Geometry Nodes modifier. This is a significant 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 the tool reports a Geometry Nodes modifier and its node group. The verb 'Report' is domain-specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'geometry_nodes.create_modifier' and 'geometry_nodes.add_node'. However, it could be more precise about what 'report' entails.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring an object with a Geometry Nodes modifier, or when it is appropriate to use this tool over 'modifiers.list' or 'geometry.report'.

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