get_material_usage_flag

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond them: prefix tolerance on the usage argument, the note that the setter forces a shader recompile, and the additive detail that the flag value returned is a single boolean per flag.

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 question the tool answers, then scope, then the diagnostic symptom, then the return shape. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the return-shape sentence and the prefix note restate schema/return information that could be trimmed.

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 supplies the exact return object shape ({material_path, usage, enabled, success}) and the practical diagnostic context, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 parameters are already fully documented, including the MATUSAGE_ prefix tolerance and path format. The description largely restates that, adding only broader flag examples, 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 and resource ('Reads one EMaterialUsage flag ... on a base material') and enumerates valid flag values. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings set_material_usage_flag and get_material_usage.

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 diagnostic trigger: when a material renders fine on a static mesh but shows the grey checker on a skeletal or instanced mesh, this is the check to run. It also names set_material_usage_flag as the enabling alternative, but does not say when this tool is the wrong choice versus get_material_usage.

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