get_material_default_parameter

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's real contribution is the found-flag semantics: it explains that engine getters cannot distinguish an absent parameter from an explicit default, and that this tool returns found=false instead of a masquerading default. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it omits auth/permission notes.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the writer-without-reader note and found-flag rationale each earn their place. It is slightly long and the return-shape listing is dense, but nothing is pure filler.

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 carries the return-value burden, and it does spell out the full response shape including the optional value union. Combined with the found-flag nuance, it is nearly complete for a simple read tool; only error/failure semantics are unaddressed.

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. The description restates the return fields but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail about the parameters themselves, so the baseline of 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 ('Read the RESOLVED default value of a named parameter on the base UMaterial graph') and explicitly differentiates from sibling set_material_node_param, described as a 'writer-without-reader.' An agent can identify this as the read counterpart 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?

It names the pairing context (reads back what set_material_node_param writes) and explains the reason to prefer it over raw engine getters, which is effectively a when-to-use rationale. However it does not state explicit when-not conditions or other alternatives, keeping it below a 5.

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