get_node_input

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint: true, and the description aligns with that. It adds minimal context beyond the annotation—just the nuance of 'default' value—but there is no mention of error behavior, return format, or prerequisites.

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 with a clear verb-first structure and no redundancy. However, it is arguably too short to cover necessary parameter semantics, so it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 three required parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema present but not shown, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how to identify a node or input, nor does it describe what the returned default value looks like. The description is too terse for a tool with this parameter count.

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 has zero description coverage for its three parameters. The description only implies what 'input' means (the node input whose default value is returned) but leaves 'material' and 'node' undefined, forcing the user to infer their meanings from context.

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 gets a node input's current default value, using a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from get_geonode_input or get_comp_node_input, relying on the material parameter to imply it's for material nodes.

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 provided on when to use this tool or which alternatives exist. Given many sibling tools like set_node_input and get_geonode_input, the description would benefit from noting it's for material/shader node trees, but it doesn't.

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