trace_material_connection

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

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes a read-only operation (tracing connections, no modification mention). While it doesn't explicitly state 'non-destructive' or 'read-only', the description's tone and detail imply no side effects. For a simple query tool, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured with a clear Args section. Every sentence is informative, with no fluff or redundancy. It earns its place efficiently.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description doesn't need to cover return values. It covers the tool's use case, parameters, and behavior adequately. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., material must be loaded) or error conditions, which would enhance completeness for a context-aware agent.

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 description adds meaning to three of four parameters via an Args section, explaining direction and max_depth clearly. However, it fails to describe the required 'material_path' parameter, which is left to the user's inference. Despite this, the overall parameter documentation is strong and compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 tool's purpose: to trace connections upstream and/or downstream from a specific node in a material graph. It specifies the verb 'trace', the resource 'connections', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect_material_expressions' or 'trace_niagara_connection' by focusing on material pin connections.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool (for inspection of pin connections) and explains the parameters (direction, max_depth). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many material tools, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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