aedt_materials_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation (returning data) but does not disclose potential side effects, performance implications, or requirements like having a project open. The description is adequate but could add context like 'queries the current project's material library.'

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 that front-loads the key action and outputs. No unnecessary words.

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 zero parameters, an output schema exists (not shown), and the description covers the core output categories. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does, though it could briefly note the purpose (e.g., 'inspection before material modifications').

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 input schema is empty (no parameters), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying what is returned (keys, classes, used materials), which goes beyond the schema's lack of information.

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 uses specific verbs ('Return') and resources ('project material keys, material classes, and used materials'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like aedt_material_object_summary (which likely focuses on a single material object) and aedt_materials_operation (which modifies materials).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as aedt_material_object_summary, aedt_materials_operation, or other summary tools. No usage context or exclusions are mentioned.

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