spoolman_list_materials

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

With no annotations, the description conveys that this is a read-only listing operation ('List') and scopes it to all existing material types. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or whether custom material types are included, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by clarifying examples. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple no-parameter list tool, the description states the core purpose. However, without an output schema, it does not specify whether the response is a list of strings, objects, or IDs, which would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description is not expected to add parameter-level details. The schema coverage is trivially complete, and the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4.

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 specifies the action 'List' and the resource 'filament material types' with concrete examples (PLA, PETG, ABS). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spoolman_list_filaments by focusing on material types rather than filament records.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as spoolman_list_filaments or spoolman_list_vendors. The description implies it is for retrieving material types but does not state explicit use cases or exclusions.

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