inspect_material_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states 'Read' indicating no side effects, and specifies the returned data (parent + overridden parameters). Missing details on performance or requirements, but the read-only intent is clear.

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 efficiently communicates the tool's purpose with no wasted 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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description completely covers what the tool does and what it returns, meeting all informational needs.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'path' parameter. The description adds meaning by specifying it's for a UMaterialInstanceConstant and what values are read, going beyond the schema's generic 'asset path' description.

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 reads a UMaterialInstanceConstant's parent and overridden parameter values (scalar/vector/texture). It specifies the exact resource and what it retrieves, distinguishing it from sibling inspect tools like inspect_material or inspect_material_function.

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 implies a read operation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_material or inspect_skeletal_mesh. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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