projects_get_materialsList material cost lines on a project, with markup and billable flags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | Row offset. This tool has no cursor - page with offset. | |
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meta | No | ||
| warning | No | Present only when the page is truncated. | |
| materials | Yes | ||
| pagination | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond saying 'List,' which is consistent with the annotations. No contradiction, but no extra behavioral disclosure beyond the structured data.
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, front-loaded sentence that names the action, the resource, and the relevant flags with zero wasted words. Every phrase 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?
Given the low complexity (2 params, output schema present, read-only annotations), the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool returns and which project it applies to. The only minor gap is that it does not mention pagination behavior, but the input schema's offset description already covers this.
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 50%: offset is documented with pagination semantics, but project_id has no schema description. The description compensates by tying project_id to the resource ('on a project'), giving the parameter meaningful context even though it doesn't explicitly describe it.
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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('material cost lines on a project'), and the key included fields ('markup and billable flags'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like projects_get_external_services or projects_get_finance.
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 the usage scenario: when you need material cost lines for a project. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions such as 'use projects_get_external_services for services.' The context is clear but relies on inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.
The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.
With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.
The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.