rhino_material_preset_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by clarifying the return behavior (full catalogue or category subset) and the purpose of supporting preset creation. No contradictions.

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 sentences, no fluff. First sentence states action, second sentence adds purpose and context. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description, together with annotations and schema, fully covers purpose, usage context, and safety. It mentions the subsequent tool. Output schema exists. Nothing critical is missing.

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 0%, but the input schema itself describes the 'category' parameter with valid values. The tool description does not mention the parameter, missing an opportunity to compensate for low coverage. However, the schema provides sufficient meaning, so score is baseline 3.

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 it lists physical-material presets, returns full catalogue or subset, and explicitly ties to the sibling tool rhino_material_preset_create, distinguishing its purpose.

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 says 'so the LLM can pick a known-good name before calling rhino_material_preset_create', which provides clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or discuss alternatives, but the intended workflow is evident.

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