get_material_node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that output includes ports and parameter values, but nothing beyond that (no auth needs, no error behavior). Adequate but not rich.

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?

A single tight sentence with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient, though very sparse given the tool's documentation gaps.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, leaving material_id entirely undocumented makes the definition only marginally 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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the two parameters. It implies the 'node' identifier but never defines its format, and it does not mention the optional 'material_id' parameter at all, leaving scope/context ambiguous.

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 states a clear verb ('Inspect') and resource ('graph node'), and adds scope detail ('including ports and current parameter values'). It does not differentiate from siblings such as get_node_parameter or describe_node_type, which also expose node data, so it falls short of 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_node_parameter, describe_node_type, or get_material_graph. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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