blender_material_inspect_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read-only query through 'Return' and 'inspect', and it details exactly what the operation yields: nodes with name/type/location/connections and links. It does not explicitly state that no material state is modified, but for a query tool this is sufficient.

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 with no filler: the first states the core purpose and output format, the second enumerates the exact contents. The description is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned JSON contents (nodes and links with their fields), which is enough for an agent to know what to expect. It does not mention behavior when the material name is invalid or missing, but that is a minor gap for a read-only inspection tool.

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?

The only parameter, material_name, is already fully described in the schema as 'Name of the material to inspect', and the description adds no additional format, naming, or qualification details. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 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?

States a specific verb ('Return'), resource ('full shader node graph of a material'), and output format ('structured JSON'), while listing exactly what is included. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling material tools like blender_material_list, blender_material_node_add, and blender_material_node_connect.

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 'Return ... graph' phrasing implies usage for inspecting an existing material's node structure, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over material_list or node-editing tools, and it gives no exclusions or alternative routing.

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