get_material_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers substantial detail: it explains the return structure, that parameters are filtered to a whitelist with a stable key set, and that texture_references are determined by eval values matching known texture suffixes. This goes beyond a simple 'get' and informs the agent of important filtering behavior.

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 description is compact and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a breakdown of the return dict. Every clause earns its place, with no repetition or unnecessary wording.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return value and its filtering logic, which is good. However, it does not cover usage context (when to choose this tool) or parameter semantics, leaving minor gaps for a read-only tool with two obvious-ish parameters.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for its two parameters (ctx and material_path), and the description does not compensate by explaining them. material_path is fairly self-explanatory from the tool name, but ctx remains unclear, and the description does not address parameter meaning or format at all.

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 uses a specific verb '获取' (get) and a specific resource '材质节点的详细信息' (detailed info of material node), and enumerates the exact return fields (path/type/name/parameters/texture_references), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_node_info or get_geometry_info.

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?

The description implies usage: if you need material node details with filtered parameters and texture references, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites, so guidance is only implicit.

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