get_material_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool always returns blend mode, shading model, two-sided, and expression count, and that include can add parameters, textures, or statistics. This is transparent for a read-only inspection tool, though no mention of rate limits or performance impact.

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 (about 6 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and organized with bullet-like clarity. Every sentence contributes 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description appropriately avoids detailing return values. It covers the input parameter include thoroughly and states always-returned fields. While it doesn't mention prerequisites or errors, this is acceptable for a straightforward inspect 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%, but the description compensates by explaining the include parameter's possible values ('parameters', 'textures', 'statistics') and their effects. The material_path parameter is implied by the tool name. This adds sufficient meaning beyond the schema.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource: 'Inspect a material's properties.' It lists always-returned fields and optional sections, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_material_errors or get_material_expression_info by focusing on basic properties and expandable info.

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 explains when to use the include parameter to request additional sections and notes that omitting it provides minimal output. While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, the context of siblings implies other tools for specific tasks, making usage clear enough.

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