materials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes returned data fields but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether the design must already exist, what errors may occur, or any other behavioral traits; additionally, an output schema exists, so the return-content detail largely duplicates 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 with no filler. Every phrase contributes to explaining what the tool returns, making it highly concise and structurally efficient.

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 with one required parameter and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return structure in detail. However, it leaves the `design` input ambiguous and offers no usage context, so it is only minimally complete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented `design` parameter. It only refers to 'the design' in passing and gives no meaning, format, or accepted values for the parameter, leaving the agent to infer whether it is a name, ID, or schematic reference.

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 indicates that the tool reports the materials needed to build a design, including blocks, counts, stacks, tier, and highest tier. It is specific about the resource and output content, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from siblings such as palettes or export.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The closest thing to guidance is the implied purpose of retrieving material requirements for a design, but that is not usage guidance beyond restating the tool's function.

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