validate_material_function

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses what issues are reported (unconnected_outputs, unused_inputs, orphaned) and the return format (healthy flag). It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but the diagnostic nature implies no side effects. The description is largely transparent.

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 short, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main action. Bullet points list the reported issues clearly. 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the diagnostic purpose and outcomes. It mentions the healthy flag and issue categories. However, it could be more complete by describing error cases or output structure.

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, and the description does not explain the 'function_path' parameter. It does not clarify the format or validity of the path. Since schema coverage is low, the description must compensate but fails to do so.

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: 'Diagnose issues in a Material Function's internal graph.' It specifies the action (diagnose), the resource (Material Function's internal graph), and lists specific issues it detects. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'validate_material_graph'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions. While the context of siblings suggests it is for material functions, no comparative advice is given.

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