list_available_materials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose key traits: read-only, and that it parses every .sldmat library SolidWorks is configured to use (scope/side effects). It omits cost/performance expectations for scanning all libraries, but covers the essential safety profile.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the read-only note, then the filtering/handoff guidance. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers scope, safety, and filtering adequately for a one-optional-param list tool. Minor gap on what 'classification' values look like or whether results are grouped by library.

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 100% and the schema already documents 'search' as a case-insensitive filter with the same 'steel'/'6061' examples. The description restates this rather than adding new semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — listing materials in installed SolidWorks material libraries — and implicitly separates itself from get_material/set_material by noting its output feeds set_material. An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear usage path: filter with search, then pass the exact name to set_material. It names one alternative and the handoff condition, but does not contrast with get_material or say when not to use the search filter.

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