get_mid_all_params

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by enumerating the returned fields (r, g, b, a, texture_path, parent_material, per-type lists and counts), which tells the agent what data to expect. It still omits failure behavior for an invalid MID path.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in a single clean sentence. The Returns block is long but earns its place because there is no output schema, so it is informational rather than padding.

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 enumerated return shape is exactly what the agent needs to know it will get scalar, vector and texture parameter sets plus counts. The only gap for a one-param read tool is what happens on an unresolvable MID path, which is minor against the safety annotations.

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 description coverage ('Object path of the MID'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format or syntax detail for mid_object_path beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get all parameters and their current values from a Material Instance Dynamic'), which is unambiguous about what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_material_instance_params or get_material_all_parameters, so the agent must infer the difference from the MID-specific naming.

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?

Usage is implied — read every parameter off a MID — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to an alternative such as get_material_instance_params or get_material_all_parameters. In a toolset with several overlapping parameter-reading tools, this leaves routing to inference.

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