get_material_errors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It discloses that the tool recompiles by default and returns error messages with node indices. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., modifying the material), performance impact, or error handling if the material is not found. More detail on the recompile behavior and what happens with cached errors would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise with three short sentences that are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second describes the return value, and the third explains the default behavior. No redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, return value, and key behavior (recompile by default). It is missing details about what happens when no errors exist or when the material path is invalid, but the output schema likely provides structure for return values. It is adequate for a focused utility 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. It only indirectly addresses the 'recompile' parameter by stating 'Recompiles first by default,' but does not explain the 'material_path' parameter at all. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 that the tool gets shader compilation errors for a material. It specifies the resource ('shader compilation errors for a material') and the verb ('Get'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'recompile_material' and 'get_material_info' by focusing on retrieving errors.

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 mentions that recompilation happens by default to get fresh errors, which implies usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recompile_material' or 'get_material_info', nor does it mention when to set 'recompile' to false. No exclusion criteria or specific prerequisites are given.

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