shaderfx.report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates 'report' (likely read-only) but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or output format. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full 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 one sentence of 10 words, very concise and front-loaded with the action. It has no filler, but it could be slightly expanded to cover missing details without losing conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, the description should provide some indication of return values, but it does not. It also does not clarify how 'RNA properties' are reported or how the 'object' parameter interacts with shader effects. The tool's behavior is under-specified for an agent to use reliably.

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%, yet the description only adds meaning to the 'name' parameter by saying 'one or all shader effects'. The required 'object' parameter is left unexplained beyond its schema title 'Object to inspect'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'report' and the resource 'live RNA properties' for 'shader effects', and distinguishes between one or all via the optional 'name' parameter. This is specific and unambiguous, differentiating from sibling report tools like 'shaderfx.list'.

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 implies usage for inspecting RNA properties of shader effects but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The usage context is implied but not stated.

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