get_material_instance_parent

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real domain context beyond the schema: it explains that the parent is where static switch defaults and unexposed values live, telling the agent what the returned data actually governs.

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 direct answer, then rationale, then the mutating alternative, with zero filler. The trailing Returns line is a full block, but since no output schema exists it is justified payload rather than waste.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing pieces: the four named return fields and the semantic meaning of the parent. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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% for the single material_instance_path parameter, so the schema carries the parameter contract. The description frames the parameter conceptually ('this instance') but adds no format, path syntax, or validation detail beyond the schema, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 ('Which material is this instance derived from') and enumerates exactly what is returned (parent asset path, name, class). It distinguishes itself from the mutating sibling by naming set_material_instance_parent, so an agent can tell it apart from the many get_material_instance_* tools without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit usage context ('use it to trace an instance back to the base material...the next asset to inspect when an instance behaves unexpectedly') and names the alternative mutator (set_material_instance_parent changes it). The routing decision is fully specified.

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