List Node Material Graph Nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a list-like behavior, the flat-list result shape, and the `supported:false` failure condition when the maxon framework is unavailable or no graph exists. It does not detail the node object structure or other error modes, but for a list operation this is substantive.

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?

Three short sentences: the core purpose, the two targeting modes, and the key failure signal. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers the invocation modes and the main unsupported case. It could be more explicit about the shape of the returned node items, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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% and the schema already explains `scope`, `handle`, and `node_space` defaults/aliases. The description repeats the handle-vs-scope relationship but does not add significant parameter meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline.

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 clear action ('Walk a node graph and return a flat list of nodes') and specifies two target scopes: a material handle or the active document's scene-nodes graph. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like list_graph_node_assets or list_xpresso_nodes, but its function is concrete and unambiguous.

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 gives actionable context on when to use each target: use `handle` for node-based materials and `scope:'document'` for the active scene-nodes graph. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of a full when-not-to-use comparison.

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