get_node_input

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the non-mutating nature, and the description aligns with it. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as what 'current default value' means in relation to connected inputs, whether errors occur for invalid node names, or how material selection affects the lookup.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and the tool name is reinforced without redundancy.

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 getter with readOnlyHint and an output schema, the description is nearly adequate, but it leaves meaningful ambiguity: it does not clarify that this targets material shader nodes rather than geometry nodes, nor that 'input' may be given as a name or index. Those details would materially improve call correctness.

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%, and the description does not explain the three parameters. Names like material, node, and input are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description only clarifies the 'input' concept; it does not compensate for the missing parameter-level documentation.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a node input's current default value'), and the tool name is informative. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling get_geonode_input, which could be confused absent additional context about material node trees.

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 implies a read operation for retrieving a node input's default value, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over set_node_input or get_geonode_input. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned.

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