get_material_layer_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; 'without changing it' is mildly redundant. The real added value is the disclosure of the returned shape (asset_path, usage values, counts, is_layer/is_blend), which is meaningful behavioral context no structured field provides.

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 the core verb and scope in the first sentence, then gives the return shape. Minor redundancy: the first paragraph already lists asset_path/usage/is_layer/is_blend and the Returns block repeats them, so a sentence's worth of duplication exists.

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-only getter with no output schema, the description supplies the full return field list with types, which is exactly the gap structured data leaves. Only selection guidance against sibling getters 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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents layer_path including the example path. The description explicitly notes the path can point at a layer, a blend, or any other material function, which matches and slightly reinforces the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Reads') and resource ('material function asset (layer, blend or plain function)'), and even enumerates the three asset kinds it accepts. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. get_material_layer_stack or get_material_function_graph), so an agent still has to infer which neighboring getter applies.

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 says what the tool does but never states when to use it versus the many sibling material/function getters. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions given, leaving selection entirely to inference from the name.

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