plasticity_list_appearance_materials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered externally. The description adds useful interpretive context (these properties are not manufacturing or strength evidence), but says nothing about return shape, whether bodies without an assigned material appear, or document 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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the disambiguating caveat second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool this is largely sufficient, and the caveat about not treating visual properties as strength evidence is a genuine value-add. With no output schema, however, the entry shape (material ID format, listing keyed by body) is left entirely to inference.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantics for the description to supplement. There is nothing to document beyond the scope of the listing, which the description already gives.

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 a specific verb (List) and resource (Plasticity document appearance materials), then narrows scope to the per-body assigned material ID. The closing disclaimer separates it cleanly from the many plasticity_verify_*/calculate_*_strength siblings that also deal with 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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the clarification that these are visual rather than strength properties, which effectively rules out the strength/verification siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use trigger and no named alternative (e.g., plasticity_set_appearance_material) for the write counterpart.

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