get_gn_node_tree

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the node tree, which implies read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or describe error handling (e.g., what happens if the node group does not exist). The description is not misleading, but it lacks explicit behavioral context.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and result. It contains no filler or repetition, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 present, the return structure is defined separately. However, the description lacks contextual details such as prerequisites (e.g., node group must exist), whether it is specific to geometry nodes (though the name implies), or any limitations. For a simple get operation with one parameter, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It does not explain the node_group_name parameter beyond its name, leaving ambiguity about what constitutes a valid name, how to discover it, or any constraints. Since the parameter is required and undocumented, the description should provide more guidance but does not.

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 action (return the full node tree structure) and implies the resource (a node group via the parameter). The phrase 'full node tree structure: nodes with input values and links' is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_node_group_info, which likely returns summary info. The tool name also explicitly indicates geometry nodes, reinforcing the resource.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any specific conditions or exclusions, nor does it point to sibling tools for different scenarios. An agent must infer usage from the name and surrounding tools, but no explicit direction is given.

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