get_node_tree

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds that it returns the 'full' tree with three component types, which is mild behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose anything about performance, size limits, or whether the tree is returned in a particular format—though an output schema exists.

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 states the action and the resource immediately. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 the tool's simplicity (one param) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly adequate. However, the complete lack of parameter semantics is a gap, and the description could briefly note that 'material' refers to a material name or index to make it self-contained. Still, the output schema likely clarifies return structure.

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 compensate. The 'material' parameter is left entirely unexplained—does it take a name, index, or path? The description never mentions the parameter, so an agent receives no semantic guidance beyond the required string type.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('full shader node tree') plus what it returns ('nodes, links, input values'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_geonodes_tree and get_compositor_tree by specifying 'shader', and from get_node_input which targets a single input.

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 when to use this tool: when you need the complete shader node tree, versus specific inputs or other tree types. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly among shader-related siblings.

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