shader_export_as_code

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the non-destructive safety profile. The description adds the useful fact that output is Blender Python code rather than a tree dump or GLSL, but it does not say whether the code is returned, copied, or written to a file, nor what happens if the material has no shader tree.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and object with no filler. It is efficient, though slightly terse given the missing parameter explanation.

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 one-parameter read-only export tool, this is nearly adequate: it conveys purpose and output format, and readOnlyHint covers side effects. However, it omits parameter semantics and any statement about output delivery, so an agent may still need to infer or call the tool to discover behavior.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain material_name but never mentions it. The schema only provides the title 'Material Name', leaving the mapping between the material and the exported shader tree implicit.

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 names a specific verb ('Export'), resource ('shader tree'), and output format ('bpy Python code'). It is distinguishable from sibling shader tools such as shader_get_tree or shader_clear_tree, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 shader_get_tree, shader_create_tree, or export/import tools. It neither states ideal scenarios nor excludes alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and phrasing.

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