get_material_static_switch_parameters

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 adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it returns names only (no values), it is editor-only, and it exposes data that get_material_instance_params omits. It does not discuss error behavior for an invalid path, but the added context is solid.

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 purpose before the diagnostic guidance and sibling routing. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical examples and the multi-clause 'Always check...' sentence make it denser than strictly necessary. No filler.

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 definition supplies a Returns block describing the shape (path, name array, count), clarifies names-vs-values, and marks the tool editor-only. For a single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, nothing an agent needs 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 coverage is 100% and the single path parameter is already documented as a UMaterialInterface content path. The description's 'a material or instance' corroborates but does not extend the schema with format or resolution details, so the 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 (List) on a specific resource (STATIC SWITCH parameter names) for a defined scope (material or instance), and goes further by distinguishing itself from get_material_instance_params, which the description explicitly says does not return these. An agent can differentiate it from all the neighboring get_material_* siblings without opening any 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 trigger ('Always check these when a material looks correctly configured and still renders wrong'), explains why (the parent switch may be false while all textures/scalars look right), and routes to the sibling tools for follow-up (get_material_instance_static_switch to read, set_material_instance_static_switch to write). When-to-use and alternatives are both covered.

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