get_available_materials

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the mechanism (a single Asset Registry query on UMaterialInterface and subclasses) and that nothing is loaded, explaining why wide paths are cheap. It doesn't mention any rate/cost limits beyond that, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then mechanism, then the alternative route and return shape. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the doubled consumer reference (apply_material_to_blueprint / set_actor_material) is mildly glancing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description supplies the return shape itself ({ materials, count, search_path_used }) and even notes there is no truncation flag. Combined with annotations covering safety and 100% schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (search_path defaulting to /Game/ and include_engine_materials defaulting true). The description reinforces the 'large list unless narrowed' behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Enumerate material assets under a content path') and enumerates the returned fields. It explicitly differentiates itself from resolve_asset_by_name and ties its output to the apply_material_to_blueprint / set_actor_material consumers, so an agent can place it among siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context ('one Asset Registry query', 'nothing is loaded, so a wide path is cheap') and an explicit alternative with its selection condition ('For one known name prefer resolve_asset_by_name'). Nothing is left to inference.

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