material_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The description does add useful scope by listing exactly which material facets are returned, but omits any lookup-failure behavior (e.g., what happens if neither name nor uuid matches) or return-shape context.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the category tag and safety note followed by the property inventory. Slightly redundant restating read-only alongside the annotation, but no wasted prose.

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 inspection tool with full annotation coverage and full schema coverage, the description supplies the one thing structured fields lack: the breadth of returned material data. Only the no-match/error path is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents name and uuid. The description adds no lookup syntax, precedence, or mutual-exclusivity guidance between the two selectors, leaving 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 names a specific verb tag ([INSPECT]) and resource (material properties), and enumerates the concrete payload (colors, PBR params, maps, uniforms, defines, NodeMaterial slots). This clearly separates it from material_list and set_material_property, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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 '[INSPECT] Read-only' tag implies a read context but there is no explicit when-to-use, no condition for choosing this over material_list or texture_details, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer routing from the sibling names alone.

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