list_materials

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states READ_ONLY, validation behavior, output fields (path/name/node_type/category), stable sorting by path, and response cap. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond basic purpose.

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 front-loaded with purpose and read-only status. It efficiently packs validation, output format, and sorting. However, it includes the cryptic internal identifier 'add-scene-context-selection-materials' which adds noise without clear value, so it is not a 5.

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?

For a read-only listing tool, the description provides useful details: validation, output fields, sorting, and response cap. It lacks an explanation of the ctx parameter, but the overall behavior and return shape are sufficiently described. Given no output schema or annotations, this is reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'parent' refers to parent_path, but it does not explain the required ctx parameter at all. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, leaving a key parameter undefined.

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 clearly states the task: enumerate material nodes under a parent. It uses a specific verb '枚举' (enumerate) and resource '材质节点' (material nodes), which is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_material_types, so it misses the full sibling differentiation criterion.

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 specifies that the parent must exist and that childTypeCategory must be Sop, providing a clear prerequisite. It also indicates READ_ONLY, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is clear context with no explicit exclusions.

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