get_material_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns the complete graph and implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe response shape, potential errors, or material-not-found behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the payload definition and followed by a single clear usage directive. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description adequately defines what will be returned and hints at the intended workflow. It is slightly incomplete only in not spelling out error cases or the exact interpretation of 'name'.

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 single parameter 'name' is only 'Name' in the schema, with 0% schema description coverage. The description indirectly ties it to a material via 'The material's full shader node graph', which adds minimal meaning, but it does not specify required format, namespace, or behavior for missing materials.

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 identifies the resource ('the material's full shader node graph') and enumerates its contents (nodes, socket values, links), so an agent knows this is the graph-fetching tool. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not contrast with sibling tools like get_material or list_materials.

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 instruction 'Read this before rewiring anything' gives a clear when-to-use signal and aligns with the mutating sibling tools. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, which would make it a 5.

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