get_material_param_info

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the found flag disambiguates a misspelled name from a zero value, and it explicitly states what it does NOT do (inherited-vs-overridden detection). Missing only return-format/pagination-style detail, which is minor here.

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 core action, then alternatives, then the return shape. The alternatives clause is information-dense but earns its place; the Returns block is justified since no output schema exists. Slightly dense but no wasted sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return shape ({param_name, param_type, found, value}) and the found-flag semantics. For a 3-param read-only tool, everything an agent needs to call and interpret it is present.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description maps param_type (scalar|vector|texture) to concrete value types (float | {r,g,b,a} | string), which is meaningful selection guidance not present in the schema and tells the agent what to expect for each type.

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+resource: 'Read ONE named parameter's effective value off a material instance', and explicitly scopes it against siblings get_material_all_parameters and get_material_instance_param_overridden. An agent can distinguish it from the whole-list and inheritance-check tools without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use ('the cheap targeted read-back after set_material_instance_param_override') and names both alternatives with the conditions that select them: whole list vs. inheritance-vs-override. Nothing is left to inference.

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