get_geonodes_tree

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

The description agrees with the readOnlyHint annotation and the verb 'Get' conveys a read operation. It adds a little context by naming the returned contents (nodes, links, inputs), but it does not discuss side effects, error conditions, or what the optional modifier parameter changes behaviorally.

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?

One focused sentence with no filler; the key output content is front-loaded. This is appropriately concise for a simple read-only getter.

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 an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation present, the description does not need to elaborate on return values or safety. However, it is incomplete about the two input parameters and does not route the agent away from similar tree/getter tools, so there are clear gaps for a 0%-coverage schema.

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 does not explain what 'object' or 'modifier' mean. It adds no parameter-level semantics, leaving the agent to guess that 'object' is a Blender object name and 'modifier' selects a particular geometry nodes modifier.

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 identifies the resource as 'geometry node tree structure' and says it exposes nodes, links, and inputs, which is a specific verb+resource. It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with similar siblings like get_node_tree or get_geonode_input, so it misses the top tier for sibling differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The agent is left to infer from the name/description when this tool is appropriate versus get_node_tree, get_geonode_input, or list_geonode_types.

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