get_material_graph_nodes

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses read-only nature, verbosity control, and type_filter behavior. Missing info on error conditions or permissions, but sufficient for a read operation.

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?

Concise, front-loaded purpose, structured bullet points for verbosity. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Description explains response size control and filtering. Minor gap: no mention of what constitutes a valid material_path.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description compensates by explaining verbosity values and type_filter substring matching. However, material_path is not explicitly described beyond the purpose statement.

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 'Read expression nodes in a material graph' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that add, delete, or modify nodes.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on verbosity levels with token estimates and type_filter usage, but lacks comparison to alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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