material_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It indicates the tool is a read operation ('Get') and specifies the kind of information returned, which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior, permissions, or side effects, leaving some gaps. A 3 reflects that the description provides basic behavioral context but not exhaustive disclosure.

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 sentence that leads with the main action and includes illustrative examples. Every word contributes value, and it is not padded with unnecessary text. A 5.

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?

This tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides some insight into the return contents ('parameters, textures, parent chain') but does not specify the structure or potential errors. For a low-complexity getter, this is largely sufficient, but not fully complete, so a 4.

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, material_path, is fully described in the schema with its pattern and meaning. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter itself, so it appropriately gets a baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('get') and resource ('material'), and clarifies the scope with examples ('parameters, textures, parent chain'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like material_list or material_create, earning a 5.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving details about a single material, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it gets a 4 rather than 5.

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