get_material_instance_static_component_mask

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 still adds real value: the Editor-only constraint, the domain warning that a wrong-channel read fails silently with no error, and the return shape (since no output schema exists). Minor gaps remain on pagination/error behavior, but this is well above the annotation baseline.

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-loads purpose, then layers in the domain warning, association support, the write sibling, the Editor-only note, and the return shape. Every sentence carries information; it is slightly prose-heavy but not padded.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, names the write counterpart, states the Editor-only scope, and warns about the silent failure mode. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 required and optional parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the association/layer_index capability already covered by the schema, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it. 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 (Read) and resource (static component-mask parameter on a material instance), then defines the resource concretely as the R/G/B/A channel checkboxes for a packed mask/ORM texture. It explicitly names the sibling writer set_material_instance_static_component_mask, so an agent can distinguish read from write at a glance.

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?

Clearly frames this as the read counterpart to set_material_instance_static_component_mask and notes the Editor-only constraint. It explains the association modes (Global/Layer/Blend) available for scoping, but gives no explicit when-not or alternative selection guidance beyond the write sibling.

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