material_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List materials' and does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, pagination, or defaults. The absence of such details leaves significant uncertainty for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action ('List materials') and immediately mentions the optional filters, making it easy to parse and understand.

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 listing tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does but does not mention the default limit, default path prefix, or return format. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more context (e.g., that it returns material paths or includes only assets under /Game/) would improve completeness.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of all four parameters, each with descriptive text. The description merely repeats the filter names (path, name, type) without adding extra meaning about wildcard behavior, default values, or how filters interact. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but adds no additional insight.

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's function: 'List materials in the project' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the filtering dimensions (path, name, type), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like material_info (which likely fetches a single material) and material_create (which creates a material).

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 the tool is used to enumerate materials, especially when filtering is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like asset_list or material_info. No 'when to use' or 'instead of' guidance is provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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