get_material_function_graph

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully declared. The description adds behavioral context by disclosing the exact return structure (node/connection shape), which is not derivable from annotations or the input schema.

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?

Two sentences: purpose first, then the return shape. Front-loaded and each part earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by fully specifying the return payload (path, node_count, nodes with inputs, connection_count, connections). Combined with the annotations, the agent has everything needed to call and interpret this read-only tool.

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% and there is only one parameter already documented as the asset path. The description does not add format or syntax 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 (enumerate) and resource (a UMaterialFunction's internal expression graph), and clarifies it covers both UMaterialExpression nodes and FExpressionInput connections. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_material_graph_info by scope (function instead of material).

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 routes the agent clearly via the sibling comparison, indicating this tool handles functions where get_material_graph_info handles materials. It stops short of explicit when/when-not conditions or prerequisites, but the differentiation is strong enough that an agent can select correctly.

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