get_collection_param_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavior beyond that: it searches only the array param_type selects and raises an error when the name is absent, which an agent needs to know to avoid treating a miss as an empty result.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the read/search behavior and a compact returns line. Every sentence carries information, though the two-part structure has minor overlap between the prose and the returns block.

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 correctly carries the full return shape (including id, index, default_value vs default, and collection_class). Combined with the error behavior and full schema coverage of parameters, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description mirrors param_type's array-selection behavior but adds little syntax beyond the schema, and mostly explains return-value conditioning instead.

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 specific verb (read) and resource (one parameter of a Material Parameter Collection asset), and the scope 'one parameter' distinguishes it from collection-level siblings like get_collection_info and from get_material_param_info. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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 read usage and notes the param_type-driven search and the error-on-missing-name condition, but never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_collection_info, get_material_param_info, or the add/set/remove siblings. Usage is inferable but not explicitly guided.

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