get_material_all_parameters

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it clarifies that values reflect 'effective value' resolution (material or parent), includes layer association/index, and explains the override-visibility caveat of the sibling. It stops short of describing performance/cost or permission requirements, but the annotations lower the bar.

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 key capability is front-loaded and every sentence carries routing or scope information. It is somewhat dense with a parenthetical aside and an explicit Returns block, but nothing is truly redundant, so it stays 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?

Although no output schema exists, the description embeds a Returns shape (material_instance_path, parameters array with name/type/association/layer_index/value, parameter_count). Combined with scope, sibling disambiguation, and effective-value semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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 both parameters (parameter_type filter and material_instance_path) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the scalar/vector/texture filter and path meaning but adds no syntax or format beyond the schema. 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 specific verb and resource (returns every scalar/vector/texture parameter a material or its parent exposes) and names exactly what it is not: static switches and instance-only overrides. An agent can distinguish it from get_material_instance_params and get_material_static_switch_parameters without opening any 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?

Explicitly says to prefer this over get_material_instance_params and gives the reason (that tool only shows overridden params, making untouched ones look unavailable). It also names get_material_static_switch_parameters as the separate list for switches, and states it works on a base material or an instance.

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