get_shader_node_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Return' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state there are no side effects, what happens if the material doesn't exist, or whether the full tree includes hidden or disabled nodes. The behavior beyond the return content is undisclosed.

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, correctly front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it could include more informative details without becoming verbose. The structure is clean and readable.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be detailed, but the description is incomplete in essential aspects: it omits the meaning of the single required parameter, does not state any prerequisites (e.g., material must exist), and gives no usage context among the many node-related sibling tools. For a tool that returns a complex tree, this is a significant gap.

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 mention the 'material_name' parameter at all. The agent has no explanation of what material_name refers to, how to specify it, or any format requirements. The description adds zero value for parameter understanding, leaving the parameter completely undefined.

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 returns the full node tree with nodes, inputs, and links. The verb 'Return' and resource 'shader node tree' are specific. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like 'get_gn_node_tree' (geometry nodes) and 'get_compositor_tree' by the word 'shader', but does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for different node trees (geometry, compositor, shader), the description does not state to use this for material shader trees or mention any exclusions. The agent is left to infer from the tool name alone.

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