tex_params

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, deterministic read. The description adds the behavioral detail that field names serve as override point-paths, which explains how output maps to other tools' usage. Given annotation coverage, the description adds meaningful extra context.

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, dense sentence that conveys purpose, scoping, output format, and a critical coupling detail (field names = override paths). Zero wasted words. Impactful and front-loaded.

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 reference-lookup tool with one optional parameter, strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent), and no output schema, the description covers the essential needs: what it returns, the three preset scopes, and how output connects to the override system. The one gap is that the preset parameter's accepted values are only implied, not enumerated, but this is a minor gap for such a low-complexity tool.

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?

There's one parameter (preset) with a default of null, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by stating presets are metall/stoff/foliage, making it clear the preset parameter filters among these named options. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema. A brief mention that preset accepts these three values explicitly would push it to 5, but the enums are inferable from the description.

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 it returns all presets (metall/stoff/foliage) with all parameters and defaults as JSON, and clarifies field names double as valid override point-paths. This clearly defines the resource (presets) and the output format. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like tex_generate or tex_inspect, but the description is specific enough about what it returns.

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 conveys that this tool provides parameter reference data for the presets and that field names serve as override paths. This implies it's for lookup/reference purposes before generating or inspecting materials, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., tex_inspect, tex_emat) is given. Sibling differentiation is only implicit through the output being reference data.

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