search_material_functions

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

Since no annotations are present, the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, as a search tool, behavior is straightforward and safe. The description adds limited behavioral context beyond what the name implies, but doesn't mention side effects or permissions. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 and well-structured, using bullet-like lines for each parameter. It front-loads the main action and contains no unnecessary details. Every sentence is useful.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description is not required to explain return values. It covers all parameters and the search operation sufficiently. Minimal gaps remain, such as not clarifying that results are filtered by path, but the path parameter handles that.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, default value, and usage examples (e.g., filter examples). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 it searches for Material Functions by name, using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_niagara_functions' and 'find_assets' by targeting a specific asset type.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'find_assets'. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description merely explains what the tool does without contextual usage advice.

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