list_shader_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only listing operation by using '列出' (list), which implies no side effects. However, it does not disclose any potential limitations, such as whether it works only for material nodes versus geometry nodes, or how it handles missing materials. The core behavior is clear, but additional context is absent.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and details. Every phrase adds value: '列出材质节点树' (list material node tree) and the enumeration of returned data. No waste.

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 listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does and what information it returns. It does not detail the return format, but that is not strictly required. Given the low complexity and absence of annotations, the description is nearly complete.

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?

The schema provides no description for the 'material' parameter (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It implies that the parameter refers to a material by naming the tool 'list material node tree', but it does not explicitly state the parameter format or clarify that it is the material name. It adds basic meaning but not rich detail.

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 states the tool lists the material node tree with specific details: node type, position, input values, properties, and all connections. The verb 'list' and resource 'material node tree' are unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_materials or list_node_groups by focusing specifically on shader node structure.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it is for inspecting material node trees, it does not mention when not to use it or point to other node-related tools (e.g., get_node_tree, list_node_groups). Usage context is only implicit.

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