get_available_material_pins

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns every visible pin, whether it's connected, expected type, and feeder node, and also reports substrate_enabled and has_front_material_connected status. It does not mention destructive behavior or authorization, but for a read-only query, this is adequate.

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 concise and well-structured in three paragraphs: purpose, usage, and extra context. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are already covered. The description explains what is returned and why it is useful, including dynamic behavior (pins change based on material settings). It is quite complete for a single-parameter query tool, though it could mention error handling for invalid material paths.

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 only parameter 'material_path' is given no description in the input schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not add any semantics about the parameter, such as format or path expectations, which is a significant gap given the low 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 clearly states it queries available material output pins for a specific material, with specific verb+resource. It explains what is returned (visible pins, connection status, type, feeder node) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_material_graph_nodes by focusing on output pins for connection purposes.

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 states 'Use this to discover valid to_pin values for connect_material_expressions with to_node="material".' It also mentions that available pins change based on blend mode, shading model, and Substrate, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, though the context makes it clear.

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