get_material_instance_parameters

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'overridable parameters' but does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, or any side effects. The lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. However, it could benefit from front-loading the key action and resource even more clearly. Still, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a tool with one parameter, the description should provide more context about the material path (e.g., content browser path, package format) to ensure correct usage. The current description is adequate but lacks full situational completeness.

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 'material_path' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not add any additional meaning. It fails to specify the expected format, path requirements, or how to locate the material instance. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly provide the parameter.

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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'overridable parameters from a Material Instance', and lists specific parameter types (scalar, vector, texture, switch). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_material_instance_parameter.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. An explicit comparison to set_material_instance_parameter or other material tools would improve this score.

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