get_material_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the description's 'Get' wording is consistent with it. The description adds a useful limitation by saying 'node tree summary' rather than full node tree, but it doesn't disclose any further behavior such as error handling or what happens if the material doesn't exist. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and lists the specific properties returned, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read-only getter with one self-explanatory parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and result fields. It doesn't clarify how the material is identified or describe error behavior, but the output schema and the simplicity of the tool reduce the practical impact of those omissions.

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 contains one required 'name' string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain that 'name' is the material name or specify the expected format, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation. The meaning is inferable from the tool name, which prevents a score of 1.

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 specific action ('Get'), a clear resource ('material settings'), and enumerates the exact fields returned: base color, metallic, roughness, and node tree summary. This is enough to distinguish it from material-management siblings like list_materials or set_material_property, even though it doesn't name them 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?

The description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention that list_materials should be used for enumeration or that get_node_tree should be used for the full node tree rather than the summary. The intended context is only implied by the tool name and the 'get' verb.

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