Get Node Material Graph Info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read/report operation with 'Report' and 'confirm', and it enumerates the returned information. It doesn't discuss error behavior or permissions, but for a read-only inspection tool this is a reasonable and mostly complete disclosure.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: the first states what is reported, the second states when to call it. The key information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential return categories (node spaces, active node space, alias table) and frames the tool as a preflight check for apply_graph_description. It doesn't spell out the exact output structure or all handle variants, but for a single-parameter read-only tool the high-level summary is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 already provides a 'Material handle' description, and the tool description reinforces that this operates on materials, so the intended parameter is inferable. However, the schema actually permits many handle kinds beyond material, and the description doesn't explicitly restrict to the material variant or explain how to construct it, leaving some ambiguity despite 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and names the exact subject: which node spaces a material exposes a graph in, which one is active, and the alias table. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_graph_nodes or apply_graph_description, which operate on nodes rather than report node-space availability.

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 explicitly says to use this tool before apply_graph_description to confirm the right node_space is addressable, giving a concrete precondition and sequential context. It doesn't name alternative tools or exclusions, but it provides clear when-to-use guidance.

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