shading-list_materials

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

The description labels the tool as 'read-only', which is transparent about side effects. However, since there are no annotations to complement, it does not elaborate on behavior under edge cases (e.g., missing object parameter or undefined materials). This is sufficient for a simple list operation but lacks depth.

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 directly conveys the tool's purpose and read-only nature. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool lists materials, but the description does not indicate the output format or structure (e.g., names, indices, or full data). Since there is no output schema, the agent must infer the return value. For a simple list, this might be acceptable but is not fully complete.

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 only parameter 'object' has a clear title 'Limit to one object's material slots', which explains its purpose. However, the description itself does not explicitly state the effect of omitting the parameter (likely lists all materials). The schema coverage is 0% but the title provides reasonable meaning.

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 lists materials in the file, with a read-only intent. This distinguishes it from other sibling tools that list different resources (e.g., objects, cameras, lights) or perform actions. The verb 'list' and resource 'materials' are specific.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states the action without explaining scenarios (e.g., when you need all materials vs. those on a specific object). No alternatives 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.