get_material_function_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description must bear the burden. It discloses the return data (pins and nodes) but does not mention any behavioral traits like read-only nature, permissions required, or error conditions. It provides basic transparency but misses important 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant information.

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 deals with material functions, the description covers the main return types. However, it lacks details about parameter semantics, prerequisites (e.g., function existence), and error handling. An output schema exists, so return value documentation is not solely the description's responsibility, but parameter guidance is missing.

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 single parameter 'function_path' has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not elaborate on its meaning, expected format, or constraints. This is a critical gap since the description should compensate for the lack of schema detail.

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 specifies the verb 'Inspect' and the resource 'Material Function', and lists the exact returned components (inputs, outputs, internal nodes), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_material_info which operates on materials.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_material_graph_nodes or get_material_expression_info. The context implies it's for inspecting the overall function structure, but no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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