get_physics_material

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It fails to mention what happens if the node has no physics material, whether it returns default values or null, or any side effects. This opacity hurts usability.

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 concise sentence, but it omits important details about the return value and behavior. It is efficient but could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 lack of output schema, the description should list common physics material properties (e.g., friction, bounce) to set expectations. It fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain about what data will be returned.

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 schema provides a detailed description for the sole parameter 'path' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 physics material properties of a node, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'set_physics_material'. However, it does not specify that the material belongs to a node's physics material resource, which could be ambiguous.

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 other getters like 'get_collision_info' or 'get_physics_layers'. The description lacks context for selection among similar tools.

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