anon_get_materials

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: callers must be project members, results are scoped by visibility (which overrides permission points), and the project is auto-derived from the API key so projectId must not be passed. That is real behavioral value beyond the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences/segments with the purpose front-loaded, followed by access constraint and the endpoint. No filler, though the embedded HTTP path is somewhat redundant with 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 read-only list tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and which has no output schema, the description covers permissions, scope semantics, and project auto-detection adequately. It still omits pagination/result-set limits and any guidance on the optional type filter, so it is only minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is reported at 0% for the single optional query parameter, so the description is expected to compensate. It says nothing about the query object or its typeId filter (resources by type), leaving the only input entirely unelaborated in the prose.

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+resource ('列出资源' = list materials) and gives the underlying endpoint GET /api/projects/{id}/materials. It is clearly distinguishable from the singular anon_get_materials_resource_id and the type-listing anon_get_materials_types, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Adds an access condition ('项目成员可用') and a scoping rule (only visible-scope resources are returned, visible scope outranks permission points), which orients the agent. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like anon_get_materials_resource_id for a single item, so usage remains implied rather than directed.

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