get_shader_params

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The word 'list' implies a read operation, but it does not disclose potential prerequisites (node must have a ShaderMaterial), error behavior, or side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a getter tool.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and clearly identifies the resource. There is no filler or repetition, making it efficiently concise.

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 is simple (one param, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks details about the return format, what happens if the node lacks a ShaderMaterial, or any edge cases. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description could be more 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 only shows node_path as a string with no description. The tool description adds context by indicating the path refers to a node and that its ShaderMaterial is the target, which is meaningful. However, it does not specify the expected syntax (e.g., Godot NodePath format) or examples, so the semantics remain partially ambiguous.

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 (List), the resource (shader uniforms), and the scope (on a node's ShaderMaterial). It distinguishes this from siblings like 'set_shader_param' (which sets) and 'get_node_properties' (which reads general properties).

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 usage for shader uniform inspection by its read-only tone, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., 'use this to debug shader values' or 'use set_shader_param to change them'). No exclusions or specific prerequisites are given.

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