material_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the list of returned properties but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects beyond what annotations provide. It neither contradicts nor significantly extends the annotation information.

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 one concise sentence with a colon-separated list, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose. Every word adds value, and the structure front-loads the key action.

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?

Given the low complexity, lack of output schema, and no nested objects, the description reasonably covers the return values by listing key properties. Minor omission: no mention that at least one of name or uuid should be provided, but this is inferable from the schema.

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 100% with descriptive parameter names and schema descriptions. The description does not add further semantics beyond what the schema provides, achieving baseline adequacy. No parameter elaboration is necessary.

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 tool retrieves full material properties and lists specific attributes (color, maps, uniforms, defines). It is distinct from sibling tools like material_list (list only) and set_material_property (modification).

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 indicates when to use (get detailed properties of a material) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The context of sibling tools provides some guidance, but the description itself lacks direct usage boundaries.

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