material_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope information (which slots, how textures are represented, that assignment objects are included), but says nothing about behavior when the name is unknown or how expensive a full dump is.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with 'One material in full' and then enumerates slot, texture, and assignment data. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'fields' toggle and the absence of any failure mode, which for a two-parameter lookup leaves the agent guessing about a supported option.

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%: 'name' has no documented format (material name vs. path vs. case sensitivity) and 'fields' (boolean, default true) is never explained. The phrase 'with shader and field values' faintly hints that 'fields' controls that output, but the description never states the flag's effect or that it is optional.

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?

States precisely what is returned: a single material with per-slot shader/field values, textures as path plus sRGB flag, and assignments. The phrase 'One material in full' implicitly contrasts with the sibling material_list, though it never names that alternative or uses an explicit verb.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for inspecting one material's full contents, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over material_list or material_export, and no preconditions (e.g., material must already exist).

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