Dump Shader Tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses recursive JSON output, per-node fields, Xbitmap-to-file promotion, heuristic file_candidates, and linked_shaders expansion. It stops short of explicitly stating that the operation is read-only with no side effects, but the detailed behavior description strongly implies it.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: primary function, critical scope limitation, output transformations, and discovery guidance. It is dense but well-ordered and contains no filler.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the essential output structure and usage context. It tells the agent when to use the tool, what it returns, how to handle classical vs node materials, and how to find shader handles.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both handle and max_depth fully. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, leaving it at the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('recursively dump') and resource ('a shader resolved from a handle into JSON'), and immediately distinguishes itself from node-material tools. It also enumerates exactly what data is captured, making the tool's purpose unmistakable even among many siblings.

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 explicitly says classical materials only and directs the agent to use list_graph_nodes / apply_graph_description for node materials. It also recommends pairing with list_entities kind=shader, giving clear when-to-use and alternative routing.

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