material.inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing exactly what is surfaced: bounded node input identities, ranges, links, drivers, and write eligibility. This aligns with the read-only annotation and clarifies the introspection scope.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core verb and resource, then precisely lists the output contents. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool has an output schema, read-only annotations, and a focused scope. The description sufficiently explains the purpose and returned data. It could add an explicit note about the object_name parameter or when to prefer this over material.set_input, but overall it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It reinforces the meaning of material_slot_index via 'one exact material slot', but it does not explicitly explain object_name or the relationship between the two parameters. The schema property names and constraints are still fairly self-explanatory, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('one exact material slot'), then enumerates the exact data returned: node input identities, values, ranges, links, drivers, and write eligibility. This clearly distinguishes it from other inspect tools like object.inspect or material.set_input.

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 phrase 'one exact material slot' provides clear context that this is for targeted, read-only material inspection rather than broad scene or object inspection. It also implies a pre-write use case by exposing 'write eligibility', though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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