inspect_material_instance_constant

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it defines the output boundary (counts, not values) so the agent knows exactly what this call can and cannot answer.

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-loads purpose and the counts-vs-values distinction, then the alternatives. The explicit 'Returns:' block is longer than typical but earns its place since there is no output schema; still, it is the wordiest portion.

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 enumerates the full return shape and clarifies the semantic boundary of each count. Combined with clear triage guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'material_instance_path' fully. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, which matches the baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('One-call overview of a material instance') and precisely scopes what it returns: parent material/class plus counts of override categories. It is clearly distinguishable from the value-reading siblings it names.

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 ('triage read that tells you which of the detailed tools to reach for next') and when-not ('returns counts, not values ... never which ones are on'), then routes the agent to the three named alternatives for values.

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