blender_geonode_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it returns node group name, inputs, and outputs, and the modifier_name parameter behavior (defaults to first modifier) is described. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it describe error behavior (e.g., if no geometry nodes modifier exists). This is a minor gap given the clear read intent.

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, no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the return contents are listed succinctly. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 simple read tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description provides everything needed: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It also mentions the sibling geonode_apply for the next step. No critical information 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions. The object_name is straightforward, and modifier_name includes the default behavior. The description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 reads the current Geometry Nodes setup on an object, lists the exact return contents (node group name, input names/types/current values, output names), and explicitly ties it to the geonode_apply sibling for the tweaking workflow. This distinguishes it from other tools and makes the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly says 'Useful for introspection before tweaking values with geonode_apply', which tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and names the alternative (geonode_apply) that should follow. It implicitly excludes other inspection tools like blender_object_get by focusing on Geometry Nodes.

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