get_material_physical_material

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes further to disclose the non-obvious behavioral trait: it reads the RAW field with no engine-default fallback, so an empty path signals 'nothing authored' rather than the runtime default. That is exactly the distinction an agent needs and cannot get from annotations.

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?

Purpose and the key raw-field caveat are front-loaded, and the return-shape note is warranted since no output schema exists. Slightly long relative to a one-parameter read, but each sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only single-param tool, the description covers purpose, use case, behavioral caveat, alternative, and return shape. Nothing an agent needs to call 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% and there is a single well-documented material_path parameter, so the schema carries the burden. The description does not add format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so 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 specific verb+resource (reads which physical material a material links to) and richly characterizes what the value controls (footsteps, impact effects, friction, surface type). It also names the writer sibling set_material_physical_material, so an agent can distinguish read from write 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 a concrete use context ('exactly what you want when auditing why a surface sounds wrong') and points to the mutating alternative. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a full alternative-selection rule, but the intended scenario is clear.

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