anon_get_materials_resource_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuinely non-structured behavior: the membership requirement, the exact 403 failure mode under visibility filtering, and the fact that project scope is derived from the API key. It stops short of describing the returned payload shape.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then access/error behavior, then the endpoint and the projectId note. Four compact clauses with no filler; the raw endpoint string is the only mildly redundant element.

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 single-resource fetch with no output schema, the description covers what an agent must know to call it and what failure to expect (403). The main omission is any hint of what the response contains, which is acceptable absent an output schema but would help.

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 0% for the single nested resourceId parameter, and the description does not define its format. It does add one meaningful parameter clarifier — that projectId must NOT be supplied because the project is resolved from the API key — which compensates partly but leaves resourceId semantics to inference.

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 and resource ('获取资源详情' / get resource detail) and grounds it with the concrete endpoint GET /api/projects/{id}/materials/{resourceId}. It is distinguishable from the list tool (anon_get_materials) and the preview/versions siblings by being the single-resource detail fetch, though it never names those alternatives 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?

Gives real access context — project members may call it, and a 403 is returned when the resource is filtered out by visibility scope — but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance versus anon_get_materials_resource_id_preview or anon_get_materials_resource_id_versions. Usage is implied by the resource-detail framing rather than stated.

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